ON NUMBERS AND THE FUTURE

Not too long ago, The Star frontpaged a report on falling street crime figures that was celebrated by the government, but met with much skepticism by the public. Subsequent well-publicised snatch thefts and mall carpark robberies had the government scrambling to respond, while deepening the public sense that the numbers are a sham.

I don't like dismissing government statistics out of hand; I think reflexively rubbishing the numbers is both excessively pessimistic and rather unreasonable. Still, street crime figures, to me, tell another story, and not just because of the many tales from victims turned away from lodging police reports.

It will take a concerted effort, and a lot of time, for Malaysian trust in the police, and thus belief in their safety, to improve

Before I get into that, I'm going to comment briefly on public perceptions of their safety. The reason much of the public doesn't buy the figures is simple: there is, at present, an immense crisis of trust with Malaysian law enforcement. The aforementioned tales play a part, as do the stories of corruption, violence against suspects in custody and lack of frequent patrols in many urban areas. But remedying this will take more than just responding to those complaints, and a very long time indeed, so in the foreseeable future, Malaysians will be more pessimistic about their safety than the numbers make reasonable to be.

Moving to the main thrust of the piece: what else do street crime figures tell us? I will give the government and the police some credit for the fall in street crimes, but then, they only tell part of the story. Street crimes are, after all, committed mainly by youth, out of need. As the Malaysian economy grows, I believe it is more likely that crime will move into the shadows, out of the public eye. I speak, of course, about organized crime, international syndicate activity and corporate crime.

Does the government have the gumption to stand up to the vested interests that profit from corporate crime?

Malaysia's international record on people and drug smuggling has to improve significantly, and it doesn't appear that government policy focuses adequately on corporate crime. Enforcement of laws on the latter issue are fragmented among five different agencies; meanwhile, Malaysia remains a Tier 2 nation on the US State Department's human trafficking watch list.

As the nation's per capita income continues to grow (and hopefully more inclusively than at present), socioeconomic improvement means less people will turn to street crime to get by. However, it also means a bigger lure for, shall we say, more professional crime. This simple fact means the nation needs to ask itself two questions. The first is this: Will the government be able to shift its resources and focus to the latter?

Over time, more crime will move out of dark alleys, and into the gilded halls of wealthy and ruthless syndicates.

The second question? Will Malaysians continue to press their government on crime once it fades into the shadows?

MAKING OUR SOCIETY BLIND

I've been very scared lately by a whole host of loud voices demanding the death penalty for snatch thieves. As far as public demands go, this is probably one of the most bone-headed and barbaric ones to come our way in recent years.


Many people are incensed by continued stories of people dying due to bad falls after snatch thefts, but I'd like to respectfully point out that snatch thieves are not hardened killers. None of them sets out with the intention to kill anyone during a theft, and intent is important in criminal cases; to want to hang people who 'technically' killed someone sets us on a whole slippery slope of serious events. We are screaming overloud at what is actually a very small (but attention grabbing) part of the snatch theft picture. 

Snatch theft is an issue guaranteed to ignite passions and inflame emotions, neither of which are good guides to effective law-making.

In any case, we don't hang accidental murderers. We call that manslaughter. A poor kid who snatched a bag to feed himself isn't a vicious murderer who regards the death as a bonus point. Logic suggests that it's an extra burden for him to live with.


The death penalty, I'm sure we all realize, is largely useless as a deterrent to anything. Malaysia hasn't experimented much with its' death penalty, but many countries who have abolished capital punishment report no increase in crime following its abolition. Criminologists, by an 88.2% majority, do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent, as reviews of pro-deterrent studies reveal that they 'fall apart under close scrutiny' (Jeffrey Fagan, director of the Centre of  Crime, Community and Law at Columbia Law School). 

Statistics suggest the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Another statistical analysis here, by John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers, shows estimates of lives saved by the death penalty are fundamentally flawed.

In any case, the death penalty is barbaric. We as a society do our moral standing no credit when we stoop to the levels of asking for revenge. Of the vast range of punishments in the penal system, the death penalty, due to its terminal nature, is the only one that doesn't seek to reform the prisoner or put him to service, so all it serves is a primal desire to see someone die for ending another life, since we know it isn't an effective crime prevention measure. 


We as Malaysians pride ourselves on our hospitality, kindness and acceptance. How the Chinese, Malays and Indians treat each other is only part of that story. An arguably more important part is how we treat the migrant worker, the homosexual, the drug addict, the criminal. It is my belief that as long as we cannot find it in our hearts to be the better person than a killer, we have no right to call ourselves a civil society. 

Need I say more?

Part of the reason we gravitate towards such tools as the death penalty is that it's a simple, blunt force tool that appeals to our baser natures. In fact, truly solving street crimes like snatch thefts requires distinctly unglamorous tools, like more inclusive economic growth, an elevation of vocational education and reform of local policing measures. Just like everyone will rally around a catchy, Kony 2012 style campaign, but not a long term fix to the underlying problem of democracy and structural poverty in Africa. 


For that, to me, is the real problem. Our education system is too broken to be truly counted on as a way out of hardcore poverty anymore, and quality skills training doesn't nearly reach as many youths as it should. It might also be an idea to devolve more powers to local councils and local police units. They, after all, can better understand the community and respond more effectively to local crime and socioeconomic concerns.


I'll not pretend snatch thefts- and crime in general- isn't a serious problem in our society. The question is, are we so keen to throw away the last remaining vestiges of civility in our nation in order to 'save' it?

THE SEARCH FOR HOPE CONTINUES

These days, American politics does not inspire much confidence in anyone. Sadly, it could get worse, as eleven states- Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee among them- have passed strict laws requiring photo IDs before a person can vote. State governors say the new rules are meant to curb voting fraud, but in practice, the new laws will prevent many legitimate voters from casting their ballots.


The voters shut out are primarily, black, poor and elderly. On the whole, 11% of eligible voters don't have updated, state issued photo IDs; the percentage rises to 25%, 15% (among those making less than $ 35 K a year) and 18% respectively. These groups are likelier to lack driver's licences, be born out of state, work multiple jobs or have disabilities, which means they cannot afford the extensive and expensive paperwork required for state IDs. Many government services have never needed state IDs, and things like employee and student cards are not accepted by many of the states' new laws.

Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry has declared his support for the law. His state's version would allow concealed-carry handgun licences as valid ID, but not employee or student IDs.

The scale of disenfranchisement is far more extensive than any fraud the laws seek to prevent. Fraud is not, as supporters of the laws claim, a serious issue in American elections- a 2011 report by the Republican National Lawyers Association found 400 election fraud prosecutions in the US over the past decade, not even one per state per year. Between 1997 and 2010, in Kansas, there were 7 convictions for voter fraud, none for voter impersonation- the true kind of fraud voter IDs would stop.


By contrast, the new laws could adversely affect more than five million voters. As it is, in 2008, 2.2 million registered voters did not vote because they lacked proper ID.

More than anything, the new laws appear to be the latest weapon in a tragically vitriolic campaign for November's elections, as if the attack ads weren't bad enough.

 To me, this move is nakedly political, coming as it is in states under Republican control, some of which are key battlegrounds this November. Seeking an advantage in a close election, Republicans must surely have realised the new laws will bar many voters who traditionally vote Democratic. One Republican official in Pennsylvania said as much, even. 

Eric Holder, who recently called the new laws 'poll taxes' , has, as Attorney General, the power to prevent the laws' implementation.

If states insist on laws like this, even though they don't solve the true fraud that DOES occur in American elections, then they should also undertake a commitment to provide free IDs to everyone who lacks it.


Under the Voting Rights Act of 1964, states with a history of discrimination must obtain permission from the Department of Justice or the Appeals Court of the Washington D.C. Circuit to change election laws, and its likely both these institutions will strike down many of these laws. Still, if Republicans agree there is a crisis of faith in American politics, they should realize it is not at the ballot box, but up on Capitol Hill, where the word 'compromise' has long been forgotten.

THE 2012 ADDRESS

It’s 2012. If you’re still into the whole Mayan calendar thing, this is our last year. But does it matter?

No.

What does matter, then?

To me, it’s simple. It matters that we as a society are too simplistic, too willing to take too many things at face value. It matters that we refuse to think deeply, that we do not commit ourselves to rational and insightful discourse about the things that matter. It matters that we are content to get by, to do good enough, when all over the world, there are peoples who need change just to go to sleep with a full stomach. It matters that we think protests and activism are cool, but refuse to contribute to the intellectual climate that makes it possible. It matters that our icons are people who are famous for God knows what, and not thinkers, scientists, activists and the like.  

Granted, there’s a lot (maybe too much) wrong with the world. And there are many obstacles that come in our way. Inequality, poverty, lousy teachers and so on. But none of us should surrender to these. None of us should make these excuses for giving in to simple escapism and cheap thrills.

Whether we are 8, 18 or 80, we should never be content with what’s already there. If you’re a doctor, ask how a drug/treatment could be more effective. If you’re a lawyer, don’t be content with the laws as they are. If you… well, you get my drift. At least, I hope so.

So this year, let’s start to be hungry to learn. Pick up some good books, on science, on politics, on different cultures, ways of thinking and ways of living. How you want to end up is entirely up to you; knowing a little bit about everything, or everything about a little bit. Heck, some combination of the two, if it pleases you.

Do more. If the newspapers feature some disaster, don’t forget it the next month. Track the victims’ progress. Or get to know a culture few have heard about. Everyone knows about Brazilian samba. How about the Yanomamo Indians?

And for heaven’s sake, let’s all learn to have a good argument without insulting the opposing party. Yes, I’m talking to you too, Malaysian politicians.

Here’s to an enlightening 2012. Live. But more importantly, learn.

                                   

'Life without knowledge is death in disguise’

Talib Kweli

2011- HOW THE YEAR WENT

It was the best of years, it was the worst of years.

I think that's how I'll remember 2011. It was a great year, no doubt about that. In fact, on a good day, I might even call it the best yet, of my 18 years. Even so, it wasn't exactly a bed of roses, and shit did happen. Anyway, on to the nitty-gritty. 

Kolej Yayasan UEM, Lembah Beringin. This place, more than
any other, defined 2011 for me.

Going to college, which in my case, was Kolej Yayasan UEM, was doubtless the biggest experience of the year. I was introduced into an entirely different academic system, which, among other things, told me that much of what I'd learned earlier were half-truths, at best. A-Levels proved to be a formidable academic challenge; I've enjoyed the mental workout a lot. Especially Biology. Awesome stuff. (Thanks, Ms. Yati and Mr. Vroege)

I met loads of awesome people at KY, too. Some were upfront and extroverted. Others took some time and effort to get to know. You know what? I don't regret that at all. Thanks to KY's population, I had lots of fun (crazy CoD and Battle for Middle Earth sessions) and interesting, insightful conversations (Carolyn, Alia, Raehan, Rachel, Sharavana Vel). KY's people also introduced me to awesome new experiences. Special thanks to the Debate Club for the education in British Parliamentary Debate. Hats off to Carolyn (again) and Amir Rozlan for the introduction to Model United Nations. 

Mos Def and Talib Kweli, the rappers who make up Black Star.
This group inspired me; they're my soundtrack to 2011

Other things KY did for me was giving me an excellent library (I could live there if I had food, a bed and shower), cool places for walks (Saad Square, and the walkway roof), and the chance to represent it in the KDU Interschool Debate (quarter finals, and 5th best speaker; thanks all our debaters and esp. Raehan, Carolyn and Ms Rena). I'm also very glad for all the eye opening rap music I listened to; I learned a lot and got to relax too.

I wasn't an angel this year, far from it. I could have been a lot more perceptive to others, not blindly blundering on with what I wanted. I could have trusted more carefully. I could have controlled my tongue. I could have worked harder, and delayed less. To all the people I hurt and offended, in various ways, Mea Culpa. I'm sorry. To the personal demons I've faced down- this year was a draw. You will never win. (Some people will know what I'm talking about here).

My grandfather's death impressed on me just how important it is to know the people you love. I really wish I got to know him better, but in the end, he taught me a lot, both from his old encyclopedias and his slow, musings on life and his past. Thanks, Tata. We miss you.

This is the Ipoh Railway Station, where my grandfather used to run a bookstore.
I still have some of his old papers, marked with the shop's letterhead.

Above all, thanks to all the people who were just there, as ears and shoulders. Por Yin, James, Syahira, Jered, Thaanesh, Aina, Vivian, Raehan, Vivek, Syed Johan, Sharavana Vel, Mayuri, Shermaine, and of course, Carolyn. This year wouldn't have rocked without you guys. Thank you.

A good year, this.

(P.S- If there's anyone I left out, I'm so sorry. I love you all, and you have a special place in my heart)

QAT OFF

It is a given fact that every country has one curious feature, which, to foreign observers at first seems jarring, then becomes so normal that it fades into the background, like bold wallpaper at an acquaintance's house. In Yemen, this feature is qat (also spelled khat or gat), a mildly stimulative leaf chewed by nearly everyone.

Like many curious features though, qat is slowly, but surely, killing Yemen.

Terraced qat fields near Wadi Dhahr

Economically speaking, it's never a good idea to plant a crop that's banned in most developed countries, and hence, is only purchased by locals, who are, in any case, poor (Yemen has a GDP per capita of just 2600 USD). In 2005, the total area under cultivation was 123, 933 hectares, according to the Ministry of Agriculture. Given the MoA's estimate that this area grows by 12% a year, by the end of 2011, this area could be 244, 622 hectares! Such an extensive area would be of better economic use if dedicated to cash crops like coffee, of which Yemen used to be a major producer. It would be even better if the land was directed to construction of factories and other economic infrastructure.

Using this area of qat cultivation and Ethiopian production estimates, 244 622 hectares of land could produce over 100 000 tonnes of coffee a year. Assuming Arabica coffee beans are used to replace qat, this amount is currently valued at 218.7 million USD, translating to substantial profits for rural farmers.

Worse, qat uses up about 30 percent of Yemen's already scarce water supplies. Yemeni agriculture relies primarily on groundwater, as rainfall is scarce. If qat cultivation continues, the lack of good profits it brings will mean that the government and general public will not have sufficient finances to cope with rising water prices, never mind the social and industrial consequences such a rise would entail.

Moreover, qat is chewed in afternoon sessions that begin after the Yemeni workday ends at 2-3 p.m. These sessions last about 3-4 hours and are social events in themselves. Logically speaking, time wasted in this way could be put to better use, mainly for longer (and more productive) workdays. It is difficult to directly connect the national qat addiction to Yemen's lack of development, but a quick comparision of the country with many of it's Arab neighbors is telling indeed.

Men chew qat in a hut overlooking the crop in Yemen.
Qat chewing sessions can last up to five hours a day.

In fact, qat is even regarded in playing a negative role in the Yemeni protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Protesters quietly dispersed every afternoon to chew qat, meaning that the anti-government momentum that toppled Tunisia's and Egypt's rulers was just not there. This despite the fact that economic conditions in Yemen are much worse than those of the other two nations. Yemeni's might endlessly disparage their political leaders at qat sessions, but until tribal militias clashed with government security forces, stunted by qat, that's all many of them do- talk.

Completely eradicating something which has got its claws so deeply sunk into a country is probably impossible. However, once the dust has settled in Yemen, a new government could begin by allocating land to other purposes and extending the workday. Post-revolution, Yemen will face many obstacles to progress. Here's hoping qat won't be a hurdle far into the future.

EQUALITY

Can true equality within a society ever be achieved? People have, for ages, been expressing the hope that we will live in a world where we are all equal, where divisions within society, especially wealth and class based divisions, will cease to exist. Entire governments have staked claims to power on the belief that they can create a truly egalitarian society.

But can true equality be achieved? No.

The reason for this is simple. All men are not created alike. Within a system, there will always be people who work harder, know how to bend the rules or are plain lucky. These people will end up richer and more successful. Inevitably, there will be people left at the bottom of the pile. 

Now, if governments start giving preferential treatment to those left out, that would in itself be a source of inequality, because not everyone is going to get such treatment. In that sense, there is another kind of inequality, in the way the government treats its people, as some people get special protection from it, and others don't.

Even with such handouts, there will be people who know how to put them to the best use, and people who take them for granted badly enough to end up just scraping by. Or even worse than before. Inequality cannot be eradicated, but it can be reduced.

Yet, governments still promise equality when it's impossible to achieve. In Malaysia, politics is essentially a battle of the Equalizers- which party (or coalition, rather) can truly achieve equality in our sorely divided country? Tragically, most of the solutions that would make a strong dent in inequality (improving rural education, eliminating quotas, and workfare instead of welfare) are often not the most catchy of political initiatives. For starters, they take time, and usually involve the disadvantaged community in effort of its own.

So what to do? The closest governments and societies can ever come to true equality is by providing equal opportunities for all. That means improving the standards of the educational facilities offered to the entire population, instead of using government funds to pay for excellent educational facilities for certain groups (i.e. MARA). It means a welfare system that focuses not on handouts, but on handups. It will also require all ethnic groups to do some heavy lifting, like rejecting the primacy of any particular group and eliminating vernacular education (more on that in another post, maybe). 

This is not a diatribe against welfare, mind. Just because inequality can't be eliminated doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Rather, it is a reminder that we can never be a truly equal society, and so the endless pursuit of quotas and other blunt force tools to eliminate inequality should be scrapped, because the harm they bring does not justify pursuing an impossible ideal. And it is an appeal to recognize that equality of opportunity is the best we can provide, and also that most (or all) forms of welfare should aim to put the disadvantaged peoples back into earning their own keep. Tying benefits to eventual employment or food aid to continued schooling are examples.

Inequality cannot be eliminated. But if governments give every person an equal (or as close to equal) chance for personal advancement while steering clear of quotas  and other blunt force preferential tools, we can go a good way to reducing it. 

DURBAN: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

I must say, I was surprised (pleasantly) when I heard of a global climate deal coming out of Durban, South Africa. With the global economic climate being what it is, I hadn't even remembered the talks were on this year! If I had, I wouldn't have expected any sort of deal, because of aforementioned economic crisis.

Anyway, what do we have here? The negotiators at Durban agreed on a format for a fund to help poor nations tackle global warming. Details are sketchy at the moment (at least for non-journalists like me), but with luck, the fund will focus more on fine-tuning existing technologies as well as paying for their implementation in developing countries. It should also allow for some form of overseeing body to ensure funds are not wasted, especially by trying to force technologies into areas where it can't work, or where the adoption of one 'green' technology causes some other form of environmental destruction. (Hydropower and non-cellulosic ethanol come to mind). Most importantly, the fund must provide means for poor people to adapt to the effects of climate change.

The COP17 pleasantly surprised most fence-sitters with what came out of it

But that's the small fries of the talks. The talks far more significant achievement is this: that the Kyoto Protocol be extended until 2017 (previously set to expire in 2012), that a new legally binding deal be negotiated next year, and that developing countries accept legally binding emissions targets in future.

On the face of it, this is simply standard UN kick the can down the road behavior. But look closely. For starters, developed countries have accepted, more concretely, that they do need to help poor countries in tackling the problem. Since rich nations have historically caused much of the warming that we're now experiencing, that is fair. But since developing nation emissions have now surpassed that of developed countries, they should be legally bound to cut emissions too. And this new agreement finally gets them to do that, after years of insisting they should have the right to develop as they wish.

China and India agreed, with no small measure of reluctance, to commit themselves to cuts in future. 

Still, it's not all roses. This agreement is most definitely not the urgent action the Earth needs, as nations threatened by rising sea levels note. Scientists point out that delaying a deal for yet another year (with the prospect of more delays) means that it will be harder to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, as stipulated in the Copenhagen accords. Then there is the downright ugly news. Japan, Russia and Canada will pull out of the extended period for the Kyoto Protocol, and that Australia and New Zealand might not join in.

Uglier still was the delegates focus on the exact language and phrasing of the various parts of the agreement. To quote, they were not free of the obsession with detail by which mediocre men think they are influencing events.

The delegates at Durban will have to do a lot better next year if the successor to Kyoto is going to have real meat to it.

All in all, to me, this is a moderate deal. The successes of having a climate deal after 2012, and of having developing nations commit to legally binding carbon cuts are important. Still, this deal will not go down as revolutionary (or even as particularly significant) because it is just too little. Too little decisive action, too little conviction, and too little financing..Hopefully, it will not be too late.

CLEANING HOUSE

The BERSIH 2.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur, scheduled for tomorrow could have represented a welcome change in Malaysian democracy. The organization, now banned, has some very legitimate criticisms of the Malaysian electoral process, which, if acknowledged, could reduce some of the endless mud-slinging by defeated politicians and focus more attention on more pressing issues.

BERSIH's demands are not confined to elections either. They include several demands to implement the very foundations of a modern, open democracy that Malaysia lacks, either completely or to a worrying degree. Among these are demands to strengthen public institutions, stopping corruption and stopping dirty politics.

The ideas offered by BERSIH, by and large, are what is needed to make Malaysian politics cleaner, more mature and more substantive.

These last three demands are probably the most important, mainly because putting them in place largely clears up the whole vote-fraud she-bang. In addition, they also ensure that other aspects of Malaysian political life, like the courts and media remain impartial. This impartiality is important to ensure that people who could shake up Malaysian politics are not discriminated against, and also so idealistic youth are not discouraged from entering politics.

Even if none of BERSIH's demands are heeded by the Electoral Commission, the rally would still be a welcome exercise in free speech, and freedom of expression. It would show that there are people whose brains are not stultified by the constant lack of depth of Malaysian politics. And it raises uncomfortable questions that must be addressed sooner rather than later, instead of simply sweeping them under the carpet and maintaining a false image of a united, peaceful and progressive society.

Unfortunately, it is this lack of depth that causes Malaysian's politicians to think rally = chaos. And also to believe BERSIH is Communist, when opportunistic groups (unaffiliated with BERSIH) simply distributed pamphlets in support of the MCP.

Idiots like Ibrahim Ali, Pasir Mas MP, are the ones who have jeopardised Malaysia's democracy by threatening confrontations in response to legitimate exercises of free speech.

Rallies are peaceful things, if controlled by the police and kept violence free. What's made this one potentially chaotic is the threat by pro-government rowdies (like UMNO Youth and Perkasa) to have counter rallies and confrontations. And this lot, being uneducated and uncouth, are the violent ones. But the government lacks the brains to distinguish this and has used them as part of the excuse to ban BERSIH.

The government response has also jeopardized Najib Tun Razak's efforts to paint his government as open, liberal and moderate. Equally bone-headed has been the suggestion to BERSIH to mass in a stadium, knowing full-well no municipal government will allow a rally by a banned group in any of it's stadiums.

Najib Razak's efforts to win back the electorate with moderate politics coupled with economic transformation has foundered thanks to his administration's poor response to BERSIH.

The government should recognize it is to it's advantage to heed BERSIH's demands. If not, the target's it has set itself under the GTP and ETP become very much harder to achieve, especially the ones regarding foreign investment. And it will find itself booted out of office at the next election, Najib's popularity notwithstanding.

HELPING HANDS IN AFGHANISTAN

As Afghanistan, with the fresh encouragement given it by the death of Osama bin Laden, seeks to haul itself out of chaos, it cannot escape an observer's notice that there are many players vying to claim some sort of stake in the country's future. For the most part, this, in keeping with the trend of global integration of economies, is beneficial to the country, but must also be managed properly.

The most prominent international player would no doubt be the US, but not only because of the American combat brigades stationed there. American businesses are also viewing Afghanistan as a location ripe for investment, albeit with increased security needs; as of September 2009, there were 10712 Defense Department security contractors in the country. The fact that the Afghan economy grew by 13.5% in 2007 has assured investors that Afghanistan can be a viable business opportunity.
PepsiCo's planned plant in Afghanistan augurs well for Afghan employment, as well as the Afghan consumer products market.

That is why PepsiCo, in April 2011, signed a deal with Dubai-based Alokozay Group to manufacture and distribute Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, 7 UP and Mountain Dew in Afghanistan, via a $60 million bottling plant in Kabul. The plant, expected to come online in 2012, is estimated to create 3000 direct and indirect jobs.

But it's not just business that attracts Americans to Afghanistan. The Department of Defense Education Activity programme recruits and sends teachers to Afghanistan. Non-profit education outfits are also in the game, such as the American University of Afghanistan, which operates on the US liberal arts model and has 780 students as of 2011.The hope is that Western educational efforts will develop strong human capital in the country, as well as a generation of tolerant and open-minded youth to lead Afghanistan in future.

Afghan girls in an American run school. Focusing on education would provide better alternatives than the Taliban to Afghanistan's youth, and liberate oppressed communities like the Hazara.

Another major player in Afghanistan is India, whose efforts have been met with contempt by erstwhile rival Pakistan. Since 2001, India has given about$1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, in addition to undertaking several major infrastructure projects, like the construction of the Afghan parliament (scheduled for completion this year). Bilateral trade between the two countries stood at $358 million in March 2008.

The killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil tarnished Pakistan's image in both Kabul and Washington; India, seeking to press this advantage, pledged on 12^th May to bring total aid up to $2 billion, while also beginning to train Afghan police and forming an Afghan female police battalion.

The problem with India's dreams is simply that Pakistan would not like it. The fact remains that the Taliban was created, funded and armed by Pakistan to gain leverage in Afghanistan, which it hoped would then be an ally against India. After all, Pakistan never purged the Taliban on its soil until strict demands by the US. At the same time, one recalls Baitullah Mehsud's 2008 pledge to fight alongside the Pakistani government if war broke out with India. An Indo-Pakistani power struggle over Afghanistan would further destabilise the country's safety, and hence, its economic prospects.
Though Baitullah Mehsud is no more, the Pakistani-created terror network he helmed, the Taliban, continues to ravage Afghanistan.

Inevitably, China is also looking to boost its profile in Afghanistan. Chinese companies go about winning resource contracts in the country in much the same way they have been doing so in Africa. (In fact, the method is actually called the Angola model). For example, in February 2010,China Metallurgical Group Corporation won a contract to mine Afghanistan's Aymak copper mine with a $3.4 billion bid that included a commitment to build a power plant, a railway that will link the mine, the smelter and China (!), schools, roads and mosques. The deal also promised that all non-managerial staff will be Afghans in five years.
China's method of securing contract's in resource rich developing countries creates indirect GDP growth by bringing with it roads, schools and, in Afghanistan, mosques.

The fact that these countries are willing to make huge economic bets on the future of Afghanistan augurs well for that future, as well as American efforts at maintaining security in the country. Whatever the case for foreign investment, eventually Afghanistan must be strong enough to prioritize domestic investment, sales and consumption. For now though, here's to Afghanistan's future, to the continued growth of its people.