The Flat World?

By Jehangir Khattak, July 25, 2010

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s best-selling book The World is Flat explores the metaphor that the 21^st century globalization has virtually flattened the world for commerce. Friedman identifies ten "flatteners" that he sees as leveling the global playing field:

Flattener # 1: Collapse of the Berlin Wall: The November 9, 1989 collapse of the wall dividing capitalist West Germany from the Communist East since World War II not only symbolized the end of the Cold War, but also allowed people from the Communist East to join the economic mainstream.

Flattener #2: Netscape and the web broadened the audience for the Internet from its roots as a communications medium used primarily by "early adopters and geeks" to something that made the Internet accessible to everyone.

Flattener #3: Workflow Software: The ability of machines to talk to other machines with no humans involved. Friedman believes these first three forces have become a "crude foundation of a whole new global platform for collaboration". Software protocols such as SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol); HTML (the language that enabled anyone to design and publish documents that could be transmitted to and read on any computer anywhere) strengthened this global platform and gave it stunning outreach.

Flattener #4: In-forming: Google and other search engines are the prime example. "Never before in the history of the planet have so many people – on their own – had the ability to find so much information about so many things and about so many other people," writes Friedman. The growth of search engines is tremendous; for example take Google, in which Friedman states that it is "now processing roughly one billion searches per day, up from 150 million just three years ago".

Flattener #5: Open Source or communities uploading and collaborating on online projects. Examples include open source software, blogs, and Wikipedia. Friedman considers this phenomenon "the most disruptive force of all".

Flattener #6: Offshoring: The internal relocation of a company's manufacturing or other processes to a foreign land to take advantage of less costly operations there. China's entrance in the World Trade Organization allowed for greater competition in the playing field.

Flattener #7: Outsourcing: Friedman argues that outsourcing has allowed companies to split service and manufacturing activities into components which can be subcontracted and performed in the most efficient, cost-effective way. This process became easier with the mass distribution of fiber optic cables during the introduction of the World Wide Web. Fiber optic technology revolutionized telecommunication sector and attracted massive investments. By the mid-1980s, all told, a trillion-dollar corporate capital investment had been made in information technology, including telecommunications, and it went up from there. The massive investments drastically cut down the data transfer costs, making the concept of global village a reality.

Flattener #8: Insourcing: Friedman uses UPS as a prime example for insourcing, in which the company's employees perform services – beyond shipping – for another company. For example, UPS repairs Toshiba computers on behalf of Toshiba. The work is done at the UPS hub, by UPS employees.

Flattener #9: Supply-chaining: Friedman compares the modern retail supply chain to a river, and points to Wal-Mart as the best example of a company using technology to streamline item sales, distribution, and shipping.

Flattener #10: "The Steroids": Personal digital devices like mobile phones, iPods, personal digital assistants, instant messaging, and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Digital, Mobile, Personal and Virtual – all analog content and processes (from entertainment to photography to word processing) can be digitized and therefore shaped, manipulated and transmitted; virtual – these processes can be done at high speed with total ease; mobile – can be done anywhere, anytime by anyone; and personal – can be done by any one.

Friedman’s award-winning work has placed the globalized and flattened world in a new perspective. It reflects a paradigm shift of analyzing technology shaping a new global commerce order, which is working well for the techies sitting in Madras, India, or Chinese linguists working for Japanese companies in a distant province in central China.

Abundance of opportunity for development in a shrinking world aside, the new revolution may have its flip sides as well. Fiber optics may be connecting the world for opportunity and growth, but it is also exposing this development to new and unheard of economic and security threats. Outsourcing may be spurring a new middle class in India and China, but it is taking away bread and butter from workers in the developed West, forcing them to live on unemployment checks.

Humanity, especially the one submerged in abject poverty, may be the limited beneficiaries of flatteners such as outsourcing and offshoring, its ultimate beneficiaries are the big corporations that are becoming fatter, gaining unmatched political power both in the US and overseas. It has become a shortcut to multiply profits of multinationals. Outsourcing has become the sole vehicle to fatten corporate profits and flatten room for innovation in communities or even countries facing higher production costs. There is no dearth of innovation when it comes to cutting operational cost. Jet Blue is a glaring example of innovation when it comes to cutting cost and keeping jobs at home. Jet Blue has been successfully running home-based customer support system since its inception.

Globalization thus has landed the mankind in a new era where many of the rules of commerce, trade and even international politics of the last century no longer hold good. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also been critical of Friedman's book. In "Making Globalization Work", Stiglitz writes: “Friedman is right that there have been dramatic changes in the global economy, in the global landscape; in some directions, the world is much flatter than it has ever been, with those in various parts of the world being more connected than they have ever been, but the world is not flat […] Not only is the world not flat: in many ways it has been getting less flat.”

Richard Florida expresses similar views in his 2005 Atlantic Monthly article, "The World is Spiky". However, Hans Rosling's statistical data (2006–2009) and numerous presentations have shown that significant global progress continues to be made, so growing spikes does not mean deflating valleys.

Globalization may have created level playing field in many areas of international commerce but it is flattening or has already flattened ideas and innovation in many other areas of global economy.

With media’s poor portrayal, Pakistani Americans must speak up on Times Sq. incident

By Wakeel Ansari, Urdu Times, 13 May 2010. Translated from Urdu byJehangir Khattak.

Words are not enough to describe the emotional and psychological stress the Pakistani-American community is undergoing after Faisal Shahzad's failed attempt to bomb Times Square. It's the topic of discussion everywhere, from living room gatherings to community social events. Everyone is searching for words to condemn Shahzad's action and everyone seems to be looking for reasons that lead an educated person to commit such a despicable act. There are as many reasons coming to the forefront as there are mouths. The mainstream American media, on its part, is making every effort, through its "experts", to prove the existence of the Taliban within the Pakistani-American community. Americans are being advised to stay vigilant and report any suspicious activity to the police. Usually such actions, as was seen immediately after 9/11, lead to the targeting of the Pakistani-American community.

Faisal Shahzad's true story, or the one presented by the government, will soon be out. But for now, every American of Pakistani origin is embarrassed and ashamed. The term "guilt by association" seems more appropriate to describe this situation. Muslim- and Pakistani-American community organizations have vehemently condemned this cowardly act. However, the mainstream media is not framing the Muslin and Pakistani community's condemnation properly. Little wonder anti-Muslim politicians are stating publicly that Muslims do not condemn Faisal Shahzad's action just like they did not condemn the 9/11 terrorist attacks—and the mainstream media ends up reporting these provocative statements.

The media molds both public and government opinion on issues and sets the stage for policymaking and societal attitudes. I can gather from the current trend that efforts to formulate special policies to scrutinize Muslims, particularly Pakistanis, are not far behind. One can only say, in the face of such possibility, that the majority of Americans, who are supporters of justice, will raise their voice against the targeting of an entire community for the sins of an individual.

Personally, I am also of the opinion that the Pakistani-American community must unite and join mainstream politics. We should tell the world the truth: Pakistan is the epicenter of international intrigues. Afghan extremist groups and the drug mafia are using Pakistan's soil for their objectives; areas such as North Waziristan, historically "no-go areas" for Pakistani governments, remain impossible to govern; powers that want to see a weak Pakistan also support the terrorists, with the drug mafia and India topping the list. The terrorists, who are slowly coming to urban centers of Pakistan, have no religion but justify their nefarious acts in the name of religion. It's a shame that some officers of Pakistan's intelligence agencies are also emerging as supporters of terrorists. But the Pakistani government is after these black sheep, just like the U.S. government went after Soviet agents who infiltrated the CIA.

No one can deny that Pakistani Americans are straight-talking and honest. If we speak with our local political leaders, they will understand that Pakistani and Muslim Americans share the same dreams as other Americans – such communication will promote broader understanding and greater social harmony. We must not shy away from an honest self-explanation to our neighbors and leaders in America.

Another ‘unpopular’ American war

By Jehangir Khattak, August 20, 2009

President Barack Obama is passing through the first major test of his presidency. With dwindling approval ratings, Obama is finding it hard to sell his health care reform program to Congress and the Afghan war to the American public.

While the American public wishes to extend health insurance to every citizen through major reform in the country's health delivery system, special interest groups are actively promoting the status quo in the reform debate. The Democratic Party itself seems to be divided on the issue. Congress is to take up the reform program in the coming days, but members of Congress have continued an extensive outreach to their electorate on the issue. Most congressmen are holding town hall meetings to gauge voters' opinions about the proposed reform, expected to be the most sweeping in recent years. However, victims of unfair health insurance practices are giving elected representatives a hard time. Some town hall meetings, where health care was discussed, turned into tense exchanges of arguments between upset electorates and their representatives.

The United States spends 16 percent of its gross domestic product on health care and it is projected to reach a whopping 31 percent of its GDP in the next 25 years. Despite this massive expenditure on health care, more than 45 million Americans remain uninsured. Obviously, such a huge investment with such poor results would not be acceptable to any government anywhere in the world, especially in a country already in the middle of two wars and whose economy is in a recession. Thus, fixing the health care delivery system is as important for President Barack Obama as winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, much seems to be desired on both fronts. Progress on health care reform is possible through a bipartisan compromise, but a military standstill in Afghanistan, considered to be Obama's signature war, could have damaging consequences for the administration. Like health care reform, the handling of the Afghan war is emerging as another threat to Obama's leadership.

The very impression of Iraq being Bush's war and Afghanistan being Obama's may not go well with Obama's approval rating. Obama will not be alone in facing the negative consequences of such an impression. The Democratic Party could also sustain considerable political damage in the coming months particularly if the war in Afghanistan loses public support; there are signs that support is indeed waning.

Fifty-one percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month said that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. The war is becoming even more unpopular within the Democratic Party itself, with seven out of ten Democrats saying that the war is not worth the cost. However, support for the war in the Republican Party remains high. According to the same survey, 58 percent of Republicans support the war in Afghanistan.

Will Americans adopt the same attitude towards the war in Afghanistan as was witnessed in 2006 with the Iraq war, when Republicans not only lost the people's confidence but also control of the U.S. Congress, and ultimately the presidency? Will history repeat itself, this time with the war in Afghanistan loosening the Democrats' grip on power?

These questions might sound premature, but they are not impossible to consider. Much depends on the administration's strategy in Afghanistan. It is yet to be seen if President Obama, like his predecessor, will try to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan using just military power, or will use political instruments as well – especially facilitating a clean and effective government in the war-torn country. Will bringing a corruption-free government in Afghanistan be possible, and should Hamid Karzai be declared the winner of last month's elections?

Keeping past experiences in mind, bringing a clean government to Kabul will be a great challenge for the Obama Administration. Signs from Washington suggest that Obama's evolving Afghan strategy could include political elements too – offering dialogue to "correctable Taliban" who are willing to surrender and join the mainstream. Such a strategy of peeling away the so-called "correctable Taliban" could be one effective way of cornering and defeating these militants.

This strategy could have direct implications for Pakistan as well. Islamabad has been pursuing a military campaign against the Taliban on its side of the porous border with Afghanistan. It has yet to be determined how far Pakistan is ready to go for a possible change in United States policy towards Afghanistan and its impact on the region. But for now, public sentiment in America does not appear very positive for President Obama.

U.S. Census 2010 and Pakistani community

By Jehangir Khattak, March 11, 2010

Preparations are in full swing for the Census 2010. The Census Bureau has launched its most expensive three-phase media campaign in its history. In the first stage, informational ads were released to the press, in the second stage motivational ads are sent out, and the third stage call for action ads will go into newspapers, magazines and electronic media outlets across the country. People are being informed about the importance of Census through these campaigns. They are being reminded that participation in the census is not just an obligation to their community, but it's the law.

Millions of households across the nation will receive the census forms, carrying 10 questions, by 18th of this month. The Census Bureau says it won't take more than 10 minutes to fill the form; however, those 10 minutes will have impact for the next decade on their neighborhoods since the data is used for the allocation of $400 billion in development funds. Not only this, it can also lead to re-demarcation of electoral constituencies, which could increase the number of seats in the state legislatures as well as the U.S. Congress. The biggest concern for the Census Bureau is an undercount.

Some pro-immigration groups have started doing politics over the Census as well, with some advocating that one way to force the Administration to fulfill its promise of comprehensive immigration reform is to boycott the Census. Same is true for undocumented immigrants who are shy to come out of the shadows and be counted. A widespread fear haunts the undocumented immigrants that the Census Bureau could share their information with immigration authorities, which in turn could jeopardize their future in this country. Several advocacy groups, along with the Census Bureau, have targeted immigrant communities with the message that the Bureau does not share its data with any other government departments. Even the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has come up with a categorical statement in recent days indicating that the PATRIOT Act – which gives the government sweeping powers for access to personal information of the people – does not apply to the Census, thus DHS cannot have access to census data. But despite all these explanations and assurances, the Census Bureau and advocacy groups report that suspicions amongst undocumented immigrants remain deep seated.

Immigrant communities have paid a heavy price for this ill-founded suspicion of government and the resultant undercount. A visit to the public schools in the neighborhood of these communities reveals the extent of this suffering, where enrollment is far higher than the intended capacity. It's not just the schools that are reeling under the pressure of overcrowding. The civic infrastructure is also crumbling under the pressure of having to service undercounted and unregistered population.

The main reason for this sorry state of affairs in such neighborhoods is the paucity of funds for education and physical infrastructure, which are allocated on the basis of population figures drawn from Census data. Thus, those who shy away from participating in the Census cost their neighborhood very dearly in terms of development and civic amenities. The undercounting also affects the communities socially, economically and politically, since Census data play a critical role in the formulation of policies in all these spheres of life.

Little wonder that when the Pakistani-American community complains of lack of political weight in the mainstream politics, it conveniently forgets that it is also facing a very serious undercounting problem. The Pakistani community in New York knows that its population here is in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, but in the Census Bureau figures, its number is just a few thousand. Once again, the level of indifference towards the Census among Pakistani Americans is so high that the Census Bureau has designated it as a "hard-to-reach" community.

It appears as if Pakistani community organizations are not realizing the gravity of the situation and are unwilling to play a role in mobilizing the community. Regrettably few Pakistani activists or organizations are visibly doing anything in this regards. So far there is only one Pakistani community organization – Council of People's Organization – that has shown responsibility and activism to mobilize the community for the Census. Though encouraging, this is not enough to overcome the community's undercount problem.

The Pakistani community's indifference towards the Census 2010 will hurt the community in the long run. Participation in Census 2010 is not just an obligation that each Pakistani American owes to the community, it's a national duty. Are Pakistani-American community organizations cognizant of the importance of the task before them and ready to do it? Apparently not. But there is no choice. If they don't swing into action and convince the community to fully participate in the Census now, they will become instrumental in making their community invisible, which will be nothing less than a crime.

Net Neutrality & Social Justice for NYC’s Immigrant Communities

By Jehangir Khattak, November 23, 2009

New York City is home to more than 3.5 million immigrants, about 1.8 million of whom either have limited or no knowledge of English and whose primary source of information is ethnic and community media in their own languages. This is one of the reasons for the mushrooming growth of this media sector in this part of the country. Today, there are more than 350 ethnic and community publications that come out of New York, including 26 foreign-language dailies. Print and electronic media are thus an integral part of the lives of immigrant New Yorkers.

We at the New York Community Media Alliance are working very closely with this media sector to catch up with the emerging technology curve in the information sector. We have been organizing training sessions for more efficient use of Web-based tools for reporting and have been encouraging publications in this sector to better organize their Web presence. And we believe that Network Neutrality demands an open and free Internet that fosters competition and innovation, and gives people access to the content and services of their choice.

However, there is a lack of awareness about Net Neutrality among immigrant communities. The Federal Communications Commission and advocacy groups have largely failed to connect with these communities on the subject. The level of understanding about Net Neutrality in these communities is far below the mark.

We feel that there are social justice implications for these communities when they cannot connect the dots between their realities and access to the Internet. For example, what does it mean if Skype is no longer available at a low cost? And what does it mean for the academic success of students who lack Internet access? Also, what does it mean if news from a home country can only be accessed through the Internet and is no longer available because it is no longer affordable to go online? These are not simple questions. These are the possibilities that will adversely impact immigrant communities if Net Neutrality is lost.

Net Neutrality is the beginning of a larger conversation on the future of the Internet. The larger goal is affordable and open Internet access for everyone, everywhere. Net Neutrality recognizes that the Internet is an essential infrastructure for economic, social and political activity and not just a private commodity to be controlled by corporations.

That’s why we not only support the calls for new FCC regulations to break the monopoly of a few companies, but also want more serious efforts to create greater understanding of Net Neutrality. We appreciate and support the New York City Council’s resolution that calls on the FCC to codify strong Net Neutrality principles in order to ensure that the Internet will continue to foster innovation, increase competition, and spur economic growth, as well as make the Internet faster and more affordable for all.

We feel that Net Neutrality is the benchmark for the free flow of information and must be protected.

Jehangir Khattak is the communications manager for the
New York Community Media Alliance. This post was originally testimony in support of the New York City Council's proposed Net Neutrality resolution.

Click here to watch testimony video http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/30827489