The Party's Not Over

Why China's 60th birthday is nothing to celebrate.

BY JOHN LEE | SEPTEMBER 28, 2009

On Sept. 16, the blockbuster film The Founding of a Republic was released to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, which occurs Thursday, Oct. 1. Featuring more than 100 big-name mainland and Hong Kong actors including Jackie Chan and Jet Li, one of the more poignant moments occurs when the actor playing Mao Zedong holds back tears and emotionally proclaims on the eve of the rise of a new and independent country, "The Chinese people have stood up." The film then awkwardly hurries forward to December 1978, when Deng Xiaoping heralds the era of "opening and reform" in the Middle Kingdom.

It is undoubtedly a propaganda film, as would be expected of anything conceived by the Beijing Municipal People's Political Consultative Conference. But the ambitious sweep of events over six decades is a reminder of something else: The reform period since Deng took power will be nearing the completion of its 31st year -- more than half the age of modern China.

This is significant because China's leaders since Deng have been telling the world that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will soon relinquish its dominance over the Chinese economy and society, and is assiduously laying the groundwork for fundamental economic and political reform, and eventually democracy -- but only after it recovers from the chaos and destruction of the Mao years. After all, Deng famously declared that democracy was "a major condition that emancipated the mind." But the reform period of 31 years has exceeded Mao's 27 years of terrible rule. The excuse that the party will "let go" its economic and political power but for the ghost of Mao and his terrible legacy is wearing thin.

So, first things first. Why should the party "let go" more power and instead work toward building institutions that will aid political reform and eventually democracy in China? Because in one important respect, authoritarian China is failing: While the Chinese state is rich and the party powerful, civil society is weak and the vast majority of people remain poor.

But aren't China's leaders doing a magnificent job of at least leading the country toward prosperity? After all, since Deng's reforms, Chinese GDP has grown 16-fold. And isn't this ultimately for the benefit of most of the country's people? Not in China's model of investment-led state corporatism hatched after the 1989 Tiananmen protests to preserve the economic power and relevance of the party.

Surprisingly, the greatest contributor to Chinese growth since the 1990s is not net exports but domestically funded fixed investment used to buy machinery or construct buildings and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. For example, this constituted more than half of GDP in 2008 and more than 45 percent of GDP growth in that year. Due to this year's massive $586 billion stimulus, about 75 percent of growth this year -- now touching 8 percent -- has been achieved through state-led fixed investment.

But not just the high reliance on fixed investment is striking. Where the capital goes is also all important. China is unusual in that bank loans -- drawn from its citizens' deposits funneled into state-controlled banks -- constitute about 80 percent of all investment activity in the country. Although state-controlled enterprises produce between one-quarter and one-third of the country's output, they receive more than three-quarters of the country's capital, and the figure is rising. Revealingly, state-controlled enterprises received more than 95 percent of the 2009 stimulus money. The Chinese state sector currently owns at least two-thirds of all fixed assets in the country.

Economic growth in poor countries is meaningful if it manages to raise the standard of living of the majority of citizens. But predominantly state-led models for growth, as in China, usually lead to profound structural inequalities that are difficult to resolve.

Tellingly, China's 50 million to 200 million-person middle class (depending on how we define the term) is the strongest supporter of the party, which is about 75 million strong. These elites comprise the fastest-growing groups wanting to become party members, almost a quarter of whom are professionals and skilled workers, a third students, and another third successful businesspeople. Joining the party has become a lucrative career move. By controlling the most important industries and the bulk of the country's capital (through state-owned banks), as well as by overseeing an extensive system of awards, promotions, and regulation, the CCP continues to control and dispense a dominant share of the country's most valued economic, professional, and intellectual opportunities.

Meanwhile, about 1 billion people are missing out on the fruits of prosperity. The country's "bottom billion" are outsiders to China's state-led model of development. They have little prospect of rising up and suffer under the yoke of frequently corrupt and incompetent rule by China's 45 million local officials. For example, according to a 2005 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences report, more than 40 million households have had their lands illegally seized by corrupt and unaccountable local officials over the past decade. In the 1990s, poverty alleviation slowed dramatically, and since 2000, the numbers of those still in poverty actually doubled in absolute terms. In one generation, China has gone from being the most equal to the most unequal country in all Asia.

It was not always like this. Eighty percent of the hundreds of millions of Chinese who have escaped poverty did so in the first 10 years of reform leading up to the 1989 Tiananmen protests -- before the state retook control of the economy. Across the board, incomes were rising with the tide. There was a decrease in the numbers, discretionary powers, and duties of local officials. Private businesses were outperforming even the best state-controlled ones, and an independent middle class was growing and thriving. Then came Tiananmen, and Beijing halted reforms and changed direction. (Predictably, all of this is left out in The Founding of a Republic.)

The planned celebrations in Beijing and other cities will no doubt be spectacular. But as the planned military parade, showcasing five types of domestically designed missiles, and other festivities take place, the power of the state will also be on show. There will be a huge People's Armed Police and People's Liberation Army contingent there just in case protesters make an appearance. Snipers will line the tops of buildings along the designated parade path. October 1 will demonstrate the party's success in holding onto power and the strength and wealth of the Chinese state, but not that of its people.

China needs to build institutions -- and especially promote the rule of law, accountability, and transparency -- and the state needs to take its hands off the levers of economic power. The party knows full well that these conditions will likely lead to political reform and are therefore resisting change. But if that occurs, then the Chinese people -- and not just the state -- will have much more to celebrate next time.

Think Again: Lawrence of Arabia

Afghanistan is a mess. Suicide bombs are still going off in Iraq. Is nation-building doomed to failure? It's time to consult the original insurgent, T.E. Lawrence.

BY JOHN C. HULSMAN | SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

"Asymmetrical Warfare Has Come a Long Way Since Lawrence."

It has come full circle. It's easy to assume that the Counterinsurgency Field Manual -- the U.S. military's new, post-Iraq-surge bible on unconventional warfare -- is something of a revolution in military thought. Afghanistan itself is rewriting the rules of war every day, it seems. But history has a funny way of repeating itself. The U.S. generals dictating strategy to their troops would have done better to pass around a 1917 publication by Lawrence of Arabia, "27 Articles."

Like the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which was written at a time when the U.S. military was losing Iraq, "27 Articles" was composed during difficult days. It was the height of the Great War in August 1917, following the astonishing capture of Aqaba in the desert campaign against the Ottoman Empire. The British were using Arab insurgents to harass the Turks, and the high command in London, fearing that Aqaba's conqueror, Lawrence of Arabia, could be killed at any moment, tasked him with codifying what he had learned in dealing with his Arab allies. It was meant to be a manual for British officers serving in the field with Faisal, the Hashemite prince and insurgent leader, and his troops. So, in the midst of leading his guerrilla campaign, Lawrence wearily began typing "27 Articles" in the heat of the desert sun.

The work he produced is nothing less than a new way for Western nation-builders to look at the world. A century ahead of his time, Lawrence realized that without the political backing of the Arab population, he could not win -- but with their support, he could not lose. Lawrence describes not only how to run a successful insurgency but how to create a nation. Sounds awfully similar to U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's mantra that protecting the Afghan people -- and thus winning their hearts and minds -- is the key to success for the NATO mission in Afghanistan. McChrystal acknowledges another dictum of Lawrence: that he is still trying to do way too much with Western troops when Afghans themselves should be doing the brunt of the work. No wonder he wants to double the Afghan Army to 400,000 in the coming years.

"Lawrence's Major Contribution Was on the Battlefield."

Wrong. It was his philosophy that stands the test of time. As coalition troops are belatedly learning in Afghanistan today, the most important component of asymmetrical warfare is far from the battlefield, among the everyday people. It was here that Lawrence truly excelled. To win militarily, Lawrence knew that one first had to become an astute observer of local governance. Western elites must work with a country's politics in its current form, rather than looking for an Ahmed Chalabi who promises to magically instill a more Western style of rule, one that is wholly alien to the local culture. In the case of Faisal's legions, the unit of politics was the decentralized tribe. In modern Iraq, politics breaks down along religious and ethnic lines, with the three primary building blocks being the Shiites, the formerly ruling Sunnis, and the Kurds. Ignoring such indigenous structures makes political failure near inevitable -- as seen in today's Iraq.

Once analyzed, the organic political structures must then become a central part of any nation-building strategy. Local elites must be made stakeholders. "Do not try to do too much with your own hands," Lawrence famously warns in "27 Articles." "Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them."

All of this, Lawrence cautioned, should be done only when the potential gains warrant the immense difficulties and costs incurred. A Western country should only engage in arduous nation-building when its primary national security interests are at stake. In the Great War, Lawrence was acutely aware of just how badly Britain needed to defeat Turkey and isolate Germany, and he was convinced that it was possible to energize the Arab revolt to that end. No doubt Lawrence would have also approved of U.S. efforts to reconstruct Germany and Japan in 1945. But he would have been far more skeptical of U.S. interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo that had seemingly little to do with immediate U.S. needs. As with these examples, most nation-building efforts peter out long before they realize their overly ambitious goals.

"Lawrence Got Too Close to the Arabs."

No way. On the contrary, Lawrence's success can be largely attributed to his proximity to Arab society. His were not the placid ruminations of some creaky scholar locked away in a cloister, but rather the day-to-day lessons drawn from a career of holding the Arab army together. He was immersed in the politics, culture, and language of his Arab counterparts. Being a student of the classics, Lawrence would have known the Greek word for what he was aiming at: "praxis," the unity of thought and action. Combining the two has been an ideal almost entirely forgotten by modern nation-builders.

The contrast between Lawrence's intimacy with Arab culture and the U.S. military's absolute inexperience with Vietnamese, Iraqi, and now Afghan society is stark. In the case of Iraq, a scant few of the large staff recruited by then-Viceroy Paul Bremer had any background at all in the Middle East. Many of President John F. Kennedy's senior advisors could not have passed an introductory course in Vietnamese history, culture, economics, or anthropology. In both cases, nation-building efforts were doomed from the start; it is impossible to transform a society about which one knows precious little.

"Lawrence's Dreams for the Arabs Were Unrealistic."

No. And they were certainly better than what actually occurred. Lawrence's vision for the Arab world, explained in his masterpiece Seven Pillars of Wisdom, was one in which boundaries would correspond to local politics rather than the whims of the great powers sketching lines on a map. The revolt was "an Arab war waged and led by Arabs for an Arab aim in Arabia," he wrote. Greater Syria (today's Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine) was the testing ground. Lawrence and Prince Faisal established a government based on local ethnic lines ruled by Feisal, a man with enormous street credibility. He spoke the local dialect of Arabic, was the son of the keeper of the holy places at Mecca, and had led Syria's war of liberation from the Ottomans. Lawrence thought that if the Arab world as a whole could be divided along similar ethnic and religious lines and run by leaders such as Faisal, stable regimes would be the result.

Although such a regional order might sound fatally utopian today, it was in fact the failure to implement it that wreaked so much future turmoil. Upon taking Damascus in October 1918, Lawrence tragically learned that his vision would never come true. He had been a geopolitical tool in the hands of his British masters, who offered Greater Syria to both the Arabs and the French. Two years later in 1920, with the tacit support of London, the French militarily destroyed Faisal's kingdom at the Battle of Maysalun. Britain and France had succeeded in replacing Ottoman rule with their own colonial oversight. But they ignored the lessons Lawrence had unearthed, disdaining local political opinion in Syria and the Arab world. Lacking local legitimacy, the colonizers had to rely on either imperial diktat or local repression to hold the pieces together. The imperial powers doomed themselves to running perpetually unstable and unsustainable colonies. And they doomed the Middle East to decades of the same.

More had been lost in Syria than just Faisal's throne and Lawrence's vision. The Middle East missed its best opportunity for building a stable Arab government in the region. That's a prospect the same great powers would no doubt cheer today. Lawrence might have been able to deliver -- if only London had listened.

"Iraq and Afghanistan Have Killed Nation-Building."

Not yet. But they've forced a much-needed rethink. The United States' present-day difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate a depressing ideological similarity to failed nation-building projects in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The problem in all these cases has been one of philosophy. U.S. military strategists have relied on tactics dating back to the British and French imperial systems -- tactics such as privileging military outcomes over political ones, ignoring local culture, imposing Western norms, and failing to work with local populations. No wonder the United States has seen the same dire results.

Where has this left nation-building? In the 20th century, the United States intervened in Haiti a handfull of times; it still remains one of the poorest countries on Earth. The Bill Clinton administration left the chaos of Somalia in 1994; today, the country is an alarming black hole in the Horn of Africa, host to an expanding al Qaeda presence. If free and fair elections were held in Bosnia now, two of the three ethnic groups (the Serbs and the Croats) would vote to secede from the country. Kosovo, despite its contentious declaration of independence, remains intact thanks only to the international community. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, having triumphed in an obviously rigged election, may be more than just the "Mayor of Kabul," but his sway surely does not extend throughout the country. Meanwhile, the Taliban are regrouping and gaining support.

With each failure, Lawrence rolls over in his grave, again and again and again. Top-down nation-building efforts from outside -- efforts that pay little more than lip service to the idea of making locals the main stakeholders -- are doomed. And unless we start learning from the wisdom of Lawrence's writings of old, he'll keep rolling in his disgust.

Europe’s Socialists Suffering Even in Downturn

Christian Charisius/Reuters

A sign showing the Social Democratic Party’s candidate for chancellor was being hauled away Monday, a day after the party badly lost in German elections.

By STEVEN ERLANGER

Published: September 28, 2009

PARIS — A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Socialism’s slow collapse.

Enlarge This Image

Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters

Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday in front of the slogan (“the middle”) of her party, the Christian Democratic Union.

Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures.

German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II.

Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s European Parliament elections and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in France, Italy and now Germany, it is divided and listless.

Some American conservatives demonize President Obama’s fiscal stimulus and health care overhaul as a dangerous turn toward European-style Socialism — but it is Europe’s right, not left, that is setting its political agenda.

Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations.

Europe’s conservatives, says Michel Winock, a historian at the Paris Institut d’Études Politiques, “have adapted themselves to modernity.” When Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Germany’s Angela Merkel condemn the excesses of the “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism while praising the protective power of the state, they are using Socialist ideas that have become mainstream, he said.

It is not that the left is irrelevant — it often represents the only viable opposition to established governments, and so benefits, as in the United States, from the normal cycle of electoral politics.

In Portugal, the governing Socialists won re-election on Sunday, but lost an absolute parliamentary majority. In Spain, the Socialists still get credit for opposing both Franco and the Iraq war. In Germany, the broad left, including the Greens, has a structural majority in Parliament, but the Social Democrats, in postelection crisis, must contemplate allying with the hard left, Die Linke, which has roots in the old East German Communist Party.

Part of the problem is the “wall in the head” between East and West Germans. While the Christian Democrats moved smoothly eastward, the Social Democrats of the West never joined with the Communists. “The two Germanys, one Socialist, one Communist — two souls — never really merged,” said Giovanni Sartori, a professor emeritus at Columbia University. “It explains why the S.P.D., which was always the major Socialist party in Europe, cannot really coalesce.”

The situation in France is even worse for the left. Asked this summer if the party was dying, Bernard-Henri Lévy, an emblematic Socialist, answered: “No — it is already dead. No one, or nearly no one, dares to say it. But everyone, or nearly everyone, knows it.” While he was accused of exaggerating, given that the party is the largest in opposition and remains popular in local government, his words struck home.

The Socialist Party, with a long revolutionary tradition and weakening ties to a diminishing working class, is riven by personal rivalries. The party last won the presidency in 1988, and in 2007, Ségolène Royal lost the presidency to Mr. Sarkozy by 6.1 percent, a large margin.

With a reputation for flakiness, Ms. Royal narrowly lost the party leadership election last year to a more doctrinaire Socialist, Martine Aubry, by 102 votes out of 135,000. The ensuing allegations of fraud further chilled their relations.

While Ms. Royal would like to move the Socialists to the center and explore a more formal coalition with the Greens and the Democratic Movement of François Bayrou, Ms. Aubry fears diluting the party. She is both famous and infamous for achieving the 35-hour workweek in the last Socialist government.

The French Socialist Party “is trapped in a hopeless contradiction,” said Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. It espouses a radical platform it cannot deliver; the result leaves space for parties to its left that can take as much as 15 percent of the vote.

The party, at its summer retreat last month at La Rochelle, a coastal resort, still talked of “comrades” and “party militants.” Its seminars included “Internationalism at Globalized Capitalism’s Hour of Crisis.”

But its infighting has drawn ridicule. Mr. Sarkozy told his party this month that he sent “a big thank-you” to Ms. Royal, “who is helping me a lot,” and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a prominent European Green politician, said “everyone has cheated” in the Socialist Party and accused Ms. Royal of acting like “an outraged young girl.”

The internecine squabbling in France and elsewhere has done little to position Socialist parties to answer the question of the moment: how to preserve the welfare state amid slower growth and rising deficits. The Socialists have, in this contest, become conservatives, fighting to preserve systems that voters think need to be improved, though not abandoned.

“The Socialists can’t adapt to the loss of their basic electorate, and with globalism, the welfare state can no longer exist in the same way,” Professor Sartori said.

Enrico Letta, 43, is one of the hopes of Italy’s left, currently in disarray in the face of Silvio Berlusconi’s nationalist populism. “We have to understand that Socialism is an answer of the last century,” Mr. Letta said. “We need to build a center-left that is pragmatic, that provides an attractive alternative, and not just an opposition.”

Mr. Letta argues that Socialist policies will have to be transmuted into a more fluid form to allow an alliance with center, liberal and green parties that won’t be called “Socialist.”

Mr. Winock, the historian, said, “I think the left and Socialism in Europe still have work to do; they have a raison d’être, and they will have to rely more on environment issues.” Combined with continuing efforts to reduce income disparity, he said, “going green” may give the left more life.

Mr. Judt argues that European Socialists need a new message — how to reform capitalism, “recognizing the centrality of economic interest while displacing it from its throne as the only way of talking about politics.”

European Socialists need “to think a lot harder about what the state can and can’t do in the 21st century,” he said.

Not an easy syllabus. But without that kind of reform, Mr. Judt said, “I don’t think Socialism in Europe has a future; and given that it is a core constitutive part of the European democratic consensus, that’s bad news.”

Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: September 28, 2009

WASHINGTON — As if it were not complicated enough, the debate over health care in Congress is becoming a battlefield in the fight over abortion.

Skip to next paragraph

Jewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Representative Bart Stupak, a Democratic opponent of abortion, is pressing for a ban on health care subsidies for abortions.

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.

• More Health Care Overhaul News

Multimedia

The Takeaway With David D. Kirkpatrick

Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. Opponents of abortion cite as precedent a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions.

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The question looms as a test of President Obama’s campaign pledge to support abortion rights but seek middle ground with those who do not. Mr. Obama has promised for months that the health care overhaul would not provide federal money to pay for elective abortions, but White House officials have declined to spell out what he means.

Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.

But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.

Lawmakers pushing the abortion restrictions say they feel the momentum is on their side, especially because the restlessness of other Democratic moderates is making every vote count.

At least 31 House Democrats have signed various recent letters to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, urging her to allow a vote on a measure to restrict use of the subsidies to pay for abortion, including 25 who joined more than 100 Republicans on a letter delivered Monday.

Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, a leading Democratic abortion opponent, said he had commitments from 40 Democrats to block the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions.

After months of pushing the issue, Mr. Stupak said in an interview, Mr. Obama finally called him 10 days ago. “He said: ‘Look, try to get this thing worked out among the Democrats. We want you to work it out within the party,’ ” Mr. Stupak said, adding that Mr. Obama did not say whether he supported the segregated-money provision or a more sweeping restriction. “We got his attention, which we never had before.”

After the president called, Mr. Stupak said, Ms. Pelosi agreed to meet with Mr. Stupak on Tuesday to discuss his proposals for the first time, her office confirmed. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, said in a statement, “As we have throughout the process, we are meeting with our members to listen to their concerns, consulting with the administration, and making progress.”

The Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote this week on a proposed amendment from Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, to restrict the use of federal subsidies.

Advocates on both sides said that if the committee does not adopt the amendment they expect a very close contest over the issue when the bill reaches the floor. Two Democratic abortion-rights opponents, Senator Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are pushing the issue.

Mr. Casey voted in the Senate health committee for a proposal to restrict the use of the subsidies; it was defeated by one vote. Mr. Nelson is considered a pivotal vote needed to pass the overall bill. “Senator Nelson does not believe that taxpayer dollars should be used in any way to fund abortion,” his spokesman said.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, said that Mr. Reid believes that the latest drafts of legislation already accomplish that goal.

Supporters of the current segregated-money model argue that 17 state Medicaid programs that cover elective abortions use a similar system, dividing their federal financing from state revenues they use to pay for procedures.

“The language of the compromise is very clear,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, “it prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.” (The bills would also mandate the availability in each state of at least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does not.)

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, argued that if the bill blocked the use of subsidies for abortion coverage, private insurers would stop covering abortion because those plans would be excluded from the federally subsidized programs.

“Women who already have this coverage would lose it,” Ms. Keenan said.

Advocates of tighter restrictions note that the health insurance program for federal employees complies with the ban on abortion financing by excluding any plans that offer abortion.

And under the Hatch amendment in the Senate or the Stupak proposals in the House, women would be free to pay extra for an insurance “rider” that would cover abortions.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has lobbied for decades to persuade the government to provide universal health insurance, says it opposes the bill unless it bans the use of subsidies for plans that cover abortion.

“We have said to the White House and various Senate offices that we could be the best friends to this bill if our concerns are met,” Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman for the bishops on abortion issues, said in an interview. “But the concerns are kind of intractable.”

LANGUAGES OF PAKISTAN

Most of the languages of Pakistan are part of the family of Indo-European languages and span the Indo-Iranian range of that family with the Indo-Aryan languages predominant in the east and the Iranian languages the most significant in the west as well as Dardic languages in the north and northwest. History Urdu, a standardized register of Hindustani, is the national language of Pakistan and has historical significance as a language developed during the Islamic conquests in the Indian Subcontinent during the period of the Mughal Empire and was chosen as a neutral language to unite the various groups of modern Pakistan. However, the language of the government and commerce is English. Most secondary educational institutes and almost all universities use English as the medium of instruction. Many other languages are spoken in Pakistan, including the following regional tongues from largest to smallest: Punjabi, Pashtu, Sindhi,Balochi, Seraiki (sometimes included within Punjabi, also called Seraiki, Sira'iki, Lahndi, Multani - from the city of Multan, Derawali, Southern Punjabi, and Western Punjabi), Hindko, Brahui, Burushaski, Balti, Shina, and Khowar (see Dardic languages). Brahui is a Dravidian language, its closest relatives being spoken primarily in southern India, far removed from Pakistan. Balti is Sino-Tibetan and Burushaski is a language isolate. In addition, according to Ethnologue, Pakistan has a million speakers of Persian, a few of whom are refugees from Afghanistan (mainly Tajiks and Hazaras) whose dialects vary from the Hazaragi-speaking population, while others include an ethnic group called the Dehwaris. Smaller groups include the Uzbeks and there is a large Kashmiri speaking population, largely refugees as well who fled from the Vale of Kashmir. Arabic and Persian are still taught as classical languages to a small number of students. Arabic is popular due to its religious significance, but some Pakistanis do not learn to speak Arabic beyond that required to read and recite Islamic prayers. Persian is an important literary language in Pakistan. Azad Kashmir- languages spoken= Mirpuri-Hindko, Pashto, Urdu Languages According to the census, Pakistanis identified the following languages as their mother tongues [figures rounded to nearest percent]: Punjabi 44%, Pashto 15%, Sindhi 14%, Seraiki 11%, Urdu 8%, Balochi 4%, others 4% The majority of Pakistanis can speak or understand two or more languages. » Major languages The official language of Pakistan is English. Urdu is the national language and lingua franca. ~44% speak Punjabi as a first language, 15% Pashto, and 31% other languages such as (Sindhi, Seraiki, Balochi, Hindkospoken in northern Pakistan and Azad Kashmir also Mirpuri (AJK), and Brahui.) » Urdu (National Language) Urdu is the national language, the lingua franca of the people. It is widely used, both formally and informally, for personal letters as well as public literature, in the literary sphere and in the popular media. It is a required subject of study in all primary and secondary schools. It is the first language of most Muhajir. Urdu is Pakistan's national language and has been promoted as a token of national unity, though less than 8% of Pakistanis speak it as their first language but it is spoken fluently as a second language by all literate Pakistanis. Urdu by origin is an "Islamic version" of Hindi language which was spoken for centuries in the neighborhood of Delhi and it was known as Western Hindi, Hindvi, Dehlvi, Reekhta and Hindustani. It is written in a modified form of the Arabic alphabet and its basically Indic vocabulary has been enriched by borrowings from Arabic, Persian, English and other Indian languages. Urdu has drawn inspiration from Persian literature and has now an enormous stock of words. The first poetry in Urdu was by the Persian poet Ameer Khusru (1253-1325) and the first Urdu book "Woh Majlis" was written in 1728 and the first time the word "Urdu" was used by Saraj-ud-din Aarzoo in 1751. Urdu was an official language in British India since 1835 and in India since 1947, where it is spoken by Muslim population, is one of the 15 national languages recognized by the constitution. » English (Official Language) English is the official language, being widely used within the government, by the civil service and the officer ranks of the military. Pakistan's Constitution and laws are written in English. Many schools, and nearly all colleges and universities, use English as the medium of instruction. » Punjabi (Provincial Language) Punjabi is spoken as a first language by ~44% of Pakistanis, mostly in Punjab as well as by a large number of people in Karachi. It is an important language since Punjabi is spoken by about half of Pakistanis. However, Punjabi does not have any official status in Pakistan. The exact numbers of Punjabi speakers in Pakistan is hard to find since there are many dialects/languages, such as Seraiki, which some regard as part of Punjabi and others regard as separate language. Punjabi is spoken by almost 60% of the population in Pakistan. The standard Punjabi dialects is from Lahore, Sialkot, Gujranwala and Sheikupura districts of the Pakistani Punjab which was used by Waris Shah (1722-1798) in his famous book "Heer" and is also now days langueage of Punjabi literature, film and music; such as Lollywood. Other dialects are Multani or Siraiki in West and South, Pothowari in North, Dogri in the mountain areas and Shahpuri in Sargodha area. Punjabi is very old language and it was known as Sanskrit in Vedic-period (ca 4000 B.C.), Pali, Prakart and Upbharnash in Ashok-period (273-32 B.C.) and Hindvi, Lahori and Multani under Muslim period (711-1857). Punjabi literature was principally spiritual in nature and has had a very rich oral tradition. The Great Sufi/Saint poetry has been the folklore of the Punjab and still sung with great love in any part of Punjab. In India it is the official language of the state of Punjab, and one of the 15 official languages recognized by the Indian constitution. It is also spoken in the neighboring states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. In addition about 25 percent of the people living in the New Delhi metropolitan area speak Punjabi in everyday life. All told, there are about 25 million speakers in India. » Punjabi dialects: » Majhi This dialect is "the standard Punjabi language" and spoken in the heart of Punjab where most of the Punjabi population lives. The main districts are Lahore, Sheikhupura, Gujaranwala and Sialkot in Pakistani Punjab and Gurdaspur and Amritsar in Indian Punjab. » Jhangvi or Jangli This dialects is spoken in the central Pakistani Punjab, stretches from districts Khanewal to Jhang and includes Faisalabad and Chiniot. » Shahpuri This dialect is spoken in Sargodha, Khushab and Mandi Bahawaldin districts. » Pothowari (regional language) The area where Pothowari is spoken extends in the north from Azad Kashmir (Mirpur) to as far south as Jhelum, Gujar Khan, Chakwal and Rawalpindi. » Hindko This dialect is spoken in districts of Peshawar, Attock, Nowshehra, Mansehra, Abbotabad and Murree. » Malwi Spoken in the eastern part of Indian Punjab. Main districts are Ludhiana, Ambala, Bathinda, Ganganagar, Maleerkotla Fazilka, Ferozepur. Malwa is the southern and central part of present day Indian Punjab. Also includes the Punjabi speaking northern areas of Haryana, viz. Ambala, Hissar, Sirsa, Kurukhetra etc. » Doabi (regional language) The word "Do Aabi" means "the land between to rivers" and this dialects is spoken between the rivers of Beas and Sutlej. It includes Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur districts. » Siraiki /Multani (regional language) Siraiki or Multani (also Lehndi by some) and perhaps differs from Punjabi more than any other dialect. Multani becomes more and more different as you move down south, as the influence of Sindhi increases, it is also known as Siraiki there. Siraiki itself is Sindhi word and means northern. See the map of Siraiki language: Siraiki Area's City of Mulatn, Bahawalpur, Rahimyar Khan, Rajanpur, Dera Ghazi Khan, Bhakkar, Dera Ismail Khan, Khanewal, Muzafargarh, Sukkur, Jaccobabad, Layyah and Mianwali. » Pashto (Provincial Language) Pashto is spoken as a first language by 15% of Pakistanis, mostly in the North-West Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and in Balochistan as well as by immigrants to the eastern provinces who are often not counted due to census irregularities. Additionally, Afghan refugees are often outside the census count, but appear to be largely Pashto speakers from Afghanistan. Pashto speakers are almost 8% of Pakistani population and more than 50% in Afghanistan. Pashto has no written literary traditions although it has a rich oral tradition. There are two major dialect patterns within which the various individual dialects may be classified; these are Pakhto, which is the northern (Peshawar) variety, and the softer Pashto spoken in southern areas. Khushal Khan Khatak (1613-1689) and Rehman Baba (1633-1708) were some big poets in Pashto language. » Sindhi (Provincial Language) Sindhi is spoken as a first language by 14% of Pakistanis, in Sindh and parts of Balochistan. Sindhi has very rich literature and is used in schools. Sindhi langugae contains Arabic words and is affected by Arabic language to a great extent. The reason being Arab ruled Sindh for more than 150 years. Muhammad bin Qasim entered Sindh and conquered it in 712 AD. He remained here for three years and set up Arabic rule in the area. According to historians, the social fabric of Sindh comprises elements of Arabic society. Sindhi is spoken in Pakistan and is also one of the constitutional languages of India. It is spoken by about 20 million people in the southern Pakistani province of Sindh, Southern Pakistan, and by about 2½ million more across the border in India. In Pakistan it is written in the Arabic script with several additional letters to accommodate special sounds. The largest Sindhi-speaking city is Hyderabad, Pakistan. Sindhi literature is also spiritual in nature and Shah Abdul Latif Bhattai (1689-1752) was one of its legendry poet who wrote Sassi Punnu, Umar Marwi in his famous book "Shah jo Rasalo". » Seraiki (Regional Language) Seraiki is related to Punjabi and Sindhi (See Classification, below) Spoken as a first language by 11% of Pakistanis, mostly in southern districts of Punjab (see Seraikis). All most 10% of the population of Pakistan speak Siraiki language. Dialects tend to blend into each other, into Punjabi to the east, and Sindhi to the south. Until recently it was considered to be a dialect of Punajbi. 85% lexical similarity with Sindhi; 68% with Odki and Sansi. Dialects are Derawali, Khatki, Jangli or Jatki and Riasti or Bahawalpuri. » Balochi (Provincial Language) Balochi is spoken as a first language by 4% of Pakistanis, mostly in Balochistan, Sindh and southern Punjab. Baluchi language is spoken by almost 3% of the Pakistani population and is very close to the Persian language itself. The name BALUCHI or BALOCHI is not found before the 10th Century. It is believed that the language was brought to its present location in a series of migrations from Northern Iran, near the Caspian Shores. Rakshani is the major dialect group in terms of numbers. Sarhaddi, is a sub dialect of Rakshani. Other sub - dialects are qalati, Chagai-kharani, Panjguri. Eastern Hill Baluchi or Northern Baluchi is very different from the rest. » Gujarati (Regional Language) Gujarati is spoken by 100,000 Pakistanis who reside in Lower Punjab and Sindh. All Parsi (5,000), many Ismaili Muslims, and many Hindus (10,000 to 100,000) speak Gujarati. Many Parsi and Ismaili Muslims are literate in Gujarati. » Other languages Numerous other languages are spoken by relatively small numbers of people, especially in some of the more remote and isolated places in, for example, the Northern Areas of Pakistan [1]. These inlude: 1) Burshaski - Spoken in Hunza 2) Shina - spoken in Baltistan 3) Khowar - Spoken is Chitral 4) Kalash - spoken the Kalash Valley » Indo-Aryan Most of Pakistan's languages are Indo-Aryan languages (80%). However, nearly all of Pakistan's languages are Indo-European languages. » Lahnda dialects Punjabi, Hindko and Seraiki, all mutually intelligible, are classified by linguists as dialects of Lahnda [2], also spelled as Lehnda. These are also, to a lesser extent, mutually intelligible with Urdu. Added together, speakers of these mutually-intelligible languages make up nearly two-thirds of Pakistan's population. Seraiki also is similar to the Sindhi language. » Iranian family of languages Pashto and Balochi are classified as members of the Iranian family of languages. [3] If combined, Iranian peoples who speak Pashto, Balochi, Dari (Afghan refugees speak both Pashto and Afghan Persian dialect of Dari), Persian, and Wakhi comprise over 20% of the population of Pakistan. Persian was official language of Muslim states for more than thousand years before the British colonial rule. It is taught and understood in many schools in Pakistan. » Semitic Arabic is widely taught and understood in Pakistan. The Arabic is language of Islam and nearly all Pakistani children learn it in schools or Madrasahs (religious schools). » Dravidian Brahui belongs to the Dravidian language family. Brahui is a major language of western Pakistan. Brahui is heavily influenced by Baluchi and Sindhi, languages in which many Brahui speakers are necessarily bilingual. Although its Dravidian descent is still obvious, Brahui now has rather few inherited Dravidian words in its lexicon

What next in Afghanistan? The five people Obama is asking.

Lance Cpl. Nathan Nail of Oxford, Ala., on patrol with his Marine unit on Aug. 11, in Khan Neshin, Afghanistan, an area the Taliban once controlled.

(Robert Nickelsberg/The New York Times/File)

Enlarge

President Obama has said he is reviewing US strategy in Afghanistan. Here are five of the most important people he is listening to – and what they might be telling him.

By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer/ September 24, 2009 edition

When he announced his administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan this spring, President Obama added an important asterisk.

“Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course,” he said March 27. “We will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.”

Now, he is making good on that promise.

Mr. Obama has already held one meeting of his top foreign policy and military advisers to discuss the Afghan war, according to news reports. Several more are expected, beginning next week.

What comes out of this high-level review could determine whether tens of thousands more American troops head to Afghanistan or whether America essentially pulls back and focuses on targeted counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda.

Here is what is known about where the members of the National Security Council might stand.

President Obama

Back in March, Obama said his goal was “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

He has consistently repeated that goal. But his strategic calculus about how to do that appears to be changing.

Media reports suggest that Obama has been shaken by the allegations of widespread fraud in Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 presidential elections. The results have sowed doubt about whether President Hamid Karzai is a reliable partner.

Also a factor is the dire battlefield assessment by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is expected to request as many as 40,000 more troops. At a time when Obama is strained to his political limit by the healthcare debate, the prospect of having to sell an Afghan troop surge is decidedly unpalatable.

The shift in Obama’s outlook was evident Sunday, when Obama told “Meet the Press”: “I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face.”

The comment contrasted strikingly to the tone of an Aug. 17 speech – three days before the Afghan election – when he said that the war in Afghanistan “is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

Vice President Joe Biden

So far, Vice President Biden has been the most outspoken critic of expanding the Afghan war.

In different venues, he has proposed different courses of action.

In an interview with CNN, he advocated a wait-and-see approach. He noted that Obama approved 21,000 more troops for Afghanistan in March, and not all of them have even arrived.

“They’re now only getting in place; they’re not all fully in place and deployed,” he said, calling discussion of adding troops “premature.”

More controversial, however, is his advocacy of a plan to scale back US forces and move toward a narrower counterterrorism strategy. In short, the US military would use missiles fired from drones and special forces operations to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan and prevent their return to Afghanistan.

Such a strategy would return to the central goal – targeting Al Qaeda – without having to rebuild a corrupt and impoverished nation.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Like Obama, Secretary Clinton has said she is open to any options going forward, so long as they keep Al Qaeda at bay.

“If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast Al Qaeda would be back in Afghanistan,” she said in an interview with PBS’s “NewsHour” Monday.

But Clinton was not necessarily swayed by McChrystal’s assertion that the US must add more troops to accomplish this.

“I can only tell you there are other assessments from, you know, very expert military analysts who have worked in counterinsurgencies that are the exact opposite [of McChrystal’s],” she said. “So what our goal is, is to take all of this incoming data and sort it out.”

National Security Adviser James Jones

While General Jones has not given a recent indication of where he stands on Afghan strategy, past statements provide some potential insight.

On a trip to Afghanistan in June, Jones told commanders not to expect any more troops this year. Clearly, much has changed since then. McChrystal had just been confirmed as the new US commander in Afghanistan, for instance.

Yet Jones seemed to think the time for troop requests ended when Obama announced his new strategy in March.

“Everybody had their day in court, so to speak, before the president made his decision,” he told McClatchy news service in an article published July 1. “We signed off on the strategy, and now we’re in the implementation phase.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen

Mullen’s position in the debate is virtually certain.

He has endorsed McChrystal’s report and told Congress Sept. 15 that “a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces.”

Mullen’s viewpoints likely reflect those of the Pentagon brass, which means the full weight of military support is behind McChrystal and his assertion that the situation in Afghanistan “demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Gates appears to be the biggest wild card.

As secretary of Defense and a Republican whose opinion is widely respected both in the administration and in Congress, his opinion would be influential. Yet of all Obama’s main advisers, he has been perhaps the most obviously conflicted.

Gates is a strong supporter of McChrystal, having engineered the retirement of McChrystal’s predecessor in order to get his man into Afghanistan.

On Sept. 3, Gates said: “I’m very open to the recommendations and certainly the perspective of General McChrystal.”

Yet in general, Gates has been wary of adding more troops, fearing that it would make the US look like occupiers.

America armed, but guns not necessarily loaded