Center for a New American Security

Not so long ago, I had a conversation with a Pakistani businessman about the prospects for economic growth. The conversation turned to import and export. Now, as someone who has personally had to clear Ms Henley-on-Thames "minimised" 250+kg of shipping through Islamabad airport customs, I have seen a little of the dark dealings it takes to get things done in a place where corruption is part of the background noise.

The businessman, who regularly ships finished products to the UK, was saying that importing and exporting in Pakistan was pretty straight forward. I was saying that it wasn't as there is no clarity in the regulations. We argued back and forth about this until we came to a point we agreed on - well, nearly. The businessman said the customs' payments were reasonable and not prohibitive to business. I said the bribe I had to pay (through some pretty dodgy cunning manoeuvrings) hadn't been as bad as I feared. We both repeated our positions not really thinking about what the other said until it clicked. We both looked at each other for a few seconds and it became clear that we were talking about different ends of the same customs official's twirly moustache.

"Um, you know. The things you have to do here to build your business, your life or whatever... They warp your mentality."

I didn't think it was worth pressing home the point that the businessman had come to consider corruption "normal".

I've seen lots of corruption; bucket loads; all over the place. I still remember feeling slightly thrilled when as an 18-year old landing in Cairo to start an Arabic course, I had to pay my first bribe to get my bags waved away by the narcotics police - not that I had anything illegal in my bags, but only because they were obviously taking about 30 minutes to check each bag in a crowded and sweltering queue in the hope that the better off would self select themselves and offer to pay up to move things along.

Corruption isn't corruption in Pakistan, it's life. As some commentators have already pointed out, it's not a huge surprise that a phenomenon that permeates society is also present in sport.

But just as corruption isn't just corruption, cricket isn't just cricket in Pakistan. It's a metaphor for how the country views itself at its best. The team can be chaotic, unruly, but from the depths of defeat and despair it can tap into some sort of unseen fount of resolve and produce dazzling displays of skill and determination. Equally, from a position of unassailable confidence, it can collapse in less time than it takes to place a bet at your local bookies. At the same time, cricket is the one thing the entire country regardless of religious affiliation, ethnic background or social class can rally around.

Which is what makes the cricket betting scandal so painful for Pakistanis. If cricket is Pakistan, it makes sense that there's an element of corruption involved. But of course, Pakistanis hope beyond the expectations of logic that there isn't. Cricket is Pakistan at its best, and its worst.

As an editorial in Pakistan's most popular newspaper Jang stated the other day:

"The whole nation is ashamed...Corruption has marred the country... and this is going on and on unabated. This latest cricket corruption case shows again the need for revising the whole system."

In the same way the floods have shown up Pakistan's governance problems then the cricket scandal shows up corruption. I don't want to contribute to the sense of beating Pakistan when it's down, but I do feel that responsibly highlighting problems is the first step to solving them. If the cricket fiasco encourages Pakistanis to take matters into their own hands and do something, it will, ultimately, have a positive impact.

Corruption is some times described as a cancer - and I think that's accurate. In a decade of reporting from the Muslim world, across countries and regions, I noticed the all-encompassing presence of corruption. Once it's in your system, it's near impossible to eradicate. Often, the only way to get rid of it, will wreak havoc on the wider body politic, and then there's still no guarantee it's going to stay away.

Corruption is not something to be opposed merely on the grounds of principle or morality. In practical terms it damages a state's ability to enact policy by providing people with ways around laws. It allows the unscrupulous to make enough money to influence the decision making power of the state. It allows those with connections to increase their gains and widen further the gap between rich and poor. There are many other reasons, but perhaps the most damaging in the current climate is the effect it has of alienating the disenfranchised and propelling them to turn to non-state actors to provide security, legal redress or relief.  It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that ending corruption is a recurrent theme with extremists.

I remember sitting in Cairo's Journalist Union on the eve of the US-led invasion of Iraq with Arab journalist friends. It's hard to imagine now, but despite all our worries about civilian deaths and US intentions towards Iraqi oil, we all took it for granted that the US would establish a competent government in Iraq. At the time, whether you agreed with US policies in the region or not, you didn't doubt its capacity to carry out its aims. The one good thing we thought the US would be able to do in Iraq was to remove corruption as a ubiquitous aspect of life in Arab and Muslim countries. In the end, the US not only failed to stamp out corruption but by its actions encouraged it. It didn't take long before US officials in Iraq were accused of taking part in it.

What usually happens when Pakistan or another Muslim country is in the limelight for deceitful shenanigans is that some Western commenters somewhere will imply (or flat out state) that the problem is cultural. This puts people on the defensive. They object to being portrayed as morally bankrupt down to the last man, woman and child. And I would agree. In a system where getting your kids into school requires bribes and not grades and even obtaining your driving licence is in essence a financial transaction, I am constantly surprised and humbled when I meet stringently honest people like Jahangir Tareen who, for example, pay their taxes even when this requires more effort than just flying under the radar and risks further unwarranted, predatory attention from greedy officials.

But the response of those who are labelled as "culturally corrupt" is often to say "There is even more corruption in the West. They are just better at hiding it." This isn't entirely true. Yes, there is corruption in the West. For example, in the UK not so long ago, Tony Blair while prime minister, ordered the Serious Fraud Office on national security grounds to stop a corruption investigation into an arms deal between a British defence firm and Saudi Arabia. The result was outrage that the executive arm of government had pulled rank over the judicial branch for economic reasons. However, this sort of thing doesn't impact the average person's life several times a day. But what it does do is degrade the checks and balances that keep the cancer out of the system.

And that's what it's about; the system. It's not about culture or DNA, it's about having properly functioning, fair systems that give people faith that even if they are poor, they will be treated like everyone else and have the same (or similar) opportunities to better their lot in life.

Today's award for Awesomeness in the English Language goes to the Financial Times, which explained cheating in cricket thusly:

The amounts offered to players to divert from the normal course of spirited competition vary from $6000 to more than £300000.

I literally could not wait for Londonstani's take on this corruption scandal surrounding Pakistan's cricket team*, so I'm jumping the gun here. My father was a sports writer and my mom a basketball coach, so I grew up surrounded by sports, and I am ecumenically enthusiastic about them. I can take as much interest in an American football game as I can in a rugby game and as much interest in a cricket match as I can in a baseball game. A few years ago, I watched New Zealand play England in a cricket test match at Lord's Cricket Ground, which is as hallowed a ground as hallowed gets. (For Americans used to baseball, think Yankee Stadium combined with Fenway Park combined with Wrigley Field combined with Cooperstown and you get a sense of the place's importance in the game of cricket.) So the news that Pakistan's cricket team had possibly rigged the proceedings somewhat last weeked -- at Lord's of all places -- threw the world of sport (outside America) into chaos.

I have wondered, on this blog, whether or not the world has been holding back from donating to Pakistan due to allegations of corruption and terrorism. Were the people of Pakistan being collectively punished due to the culture of corruption in Pakistan's government and the government's ties to violent extremists? I have only anecdotal evidence to support this, including the testimony of one friend who refuses to donate to the relief efforts in Pakistan because, in his words, "At least when a Hatian power broker embezzles my donation I know he's not going to try to kill me with it."

I wonder, though, if this cricket scandal -- which trust me, America, is a big deal in the Commonwealth nations -- will just re-inforce the world's view of Pakistan as a place hopelessly corrupt and therefore not the kind of place we should be giving money to, even for humanitarian purposes. As Steve Coll argued in the New Yorker this week**, Pakistan has a serious image problem in the eyes of the West. (And we the United States in the eyes of Pakistan.) The people of Pakistan might very well be paying the price right now for that image.

(For more on corruption and the floods, check out this post by Max Fisher at the Atlantic.com.)

*Londonstani can still count on me to bowl for Team Khan vs. Team Ms Henley-on-Thames in the much-awaited 20/20 match. But why do I have to tell his "cousin" when I plan on bowling a no ball? ... Too soon?

**I actually did not agree with the general thesis of Coll's argument, which is that economic development would reduce violent extremism. This sounds true-ish, but where is the evidence to support causality between violent extremism and economic prosperity? I have not seen it.

Muslim or Christian, what to do on Easter Sunday in Islamabad?.....

cricket!!

 

 

 

The Guardian:

Shoaib Akhtar will miss next month's World Twenty20 tournament due to a genital infection, said the Pakistan Cricket Board today.

"The medical board has reported that Shoaib Akhtar was suffering from genital viral warts and the wound needs further care and treatment for another 10 days," the PCB said in a statement.

Pakistani television has now aired CCT footage of the Lahore gunmen escaping from the clutches of the Pakistani police. (h/t The Lede)



The Pakistani police doesn't exactly seem hot on their trail, which is perhaps cruel to say given the number of Pakistani officers who died in the attacks (six). Here's something, though. If you feel the need to write "elite" on your vehicle, you probably ... aren't. (Please, Londonstani, don't start on Punjab.)


























Might the U.S. and its allies play a role in developing serious counter-terror forces in Pakistan? Because the Pakistani authorities seem more concerned with Stuart Broad's dad than they do with finding out what went wrong.

UPDATE: Londonstani here: OK, I'll leave the Punjab baiting out of it. But I'd like to point out that the lady doing the commentary on the second clip is even more surprised than AM.
"We were all astonished to see not only that these people were traveling on a motorbike but that men can be seen wearing trousers and t shirts and walking as if they are doing a bit of shopping without a trace of fear or concern...."

Everyone who reads this blog knows that Londonstani is a big cricket fan. Long-time readers will be aware that he is hoping for life time membership of the MCC for his efforts to export the great social equaliser to fresh territories (Darfur). Those who read this blog too often (seriously, you know who you are) will be aware that Londonstani has still not lived down a certain East Tenessean's clean bowled dismissal of his cousin, who claims to play for Middlesex's under-18 team.

Anyway, after reading all the BBC, NYT, Guardian, Reuters, AP etc coverage of the Lahore attacks on the Sri Lankan team, Londonstani thought to turn to a much trusted source of information on all things cricket - http://www.cricinfo.com/. And he wasn't disappointed. Writer Kamran Abbasi sums up the sheer; "are you serious?!" factor in all this.

"This the darkest day in the history of Pakistan cricket and it occurred in a pleasant suburb of Lahore, a once great city of gardens and tranquility, not far from my own family home in Pakistan."

The context you need to know about this attack lies between Abbasi's lines. This is Lahore we are talking about. Not Peshawar, or volatile Karachi, or even the capital. This is Lahore, Pakistan's "safe" cultural city, where to most residents the trouble on the border might as well be happening across it in Afghanistan.

NOTE: Abbasi bowled out Nawaz Sherif, which makes him cool. He also smacked Michael Atherton about the place, which makes him good enough to play for England.

UPDATE: For those interested in finding out more about the political context of these attacks, Londonstani recommends reading Nicholas Schmidle's great New Republic profile of the man who's supposed to save Pakistan (and potential collateral victims).

Did Tom Ricks really just describe David Kilcullen as "the Crocodile Dundee of counterinsurgency" on NPR? Because everyone knows Dave is the Shane Warne of counterinsurgency. I mean, tell me he doesn't look a little like Shane Warne.

Update: And he just called Emma Sky anti-American! Emma loves America. She just thinks we're all crazy.

Update II: Snap! Not only am a "friend" of Tom Ricks, but he mentioned the blog. Well, all that ass-kissing was worth it.

At the end of the third inning we declared victory and said the game's over. It ain't over. It isn't going to be over in future wars. If we're talking about the future, we need to talk about not how you win the peace as a separate part of the war, but you've got to look at this thing from start to finish. It's not a phased conflict; there isn't a fighting part and then another part. It is nine innings. And at the end of the game, somebody's going to declare victory. And whatever blood is poured onto the battlefield could be wasted if we don't follow it up with understanding what victory is. -- Gen. (Ret.) Anthony Zinni, USMC

A few weekends ago, Abu Muqawama sat in the stands at Lord's getting rained on, waiting for England to play New Zealand in the first test of the Kiwi's tour. They never did. There were, like, eight overs played before the umpires called it. Abu Muqawama limped home to the less fashionable neighborhoods of London, water-logged and grumpy.

It's a funny game, test cricket. What kind of game can go on for five days and not produce a winner? That's what ended up happening in the rain-shortened first test, in fact. A draw. In baseball, we play until we produce a winner -- even if that means going into extra innings and making Wade Boggs pitch. (Or Aaron Boone bat. Shudder.)

That having been said, Abu Muqawama got to thinking about Gen. Zinni's nine-inning analogy and Iraq. On the one hand, it's a pretty good sports analogy to explain why stability operations are important. Once you declare an end to "major combat operations," the enemy may or may not go home. On the other hand, the end games in counterinsurgency campaigns rarely end with the equivalent of a walk-off home run. Or a clear victor.

How will Iraq end? Probably not with a clear-cut victor. It will probably end a draw. The U.S.-led coalition of the willing posted a huge first-innings score of 568 and followed it up by arrogantly fielding exclusively fast-bowlers and allowing the enemy to post a 367 in their first innings. (We must have thought we were the Windies c. 1982.) We then collapsed for a 97 in the second innings and are now desperately trying to hang on for the win in the enemy's second innings. He might win. So might we. But at least we've got some spin bowlers on the field now. (And while Abu Muqawama isn't trying to give Kilcullen a disproportionate amount of the credit, he does kinda look and talk like Shane Warne, doesn't he?)

Abu Muqawama is guessing it's going to end a draw. And while we'll be disappointed we haven't won, we can take some solace in the fact that our arrogance and second-innings collapse didn't sink us.