tv Farhat Haq on the Muslim World CSPAN December 30, 2015 3:08pm-4:07pm EST
level that many will accept. and even though people may have medicaid doesn't necessarily access them to anything more than the emergency room that they had access to when they didn't have medicaid and the data shows that that's the truth. in indiana we are using healthy indiana plan 2.0 to cover those citizens and this is something that i support because it's a state-based way to manage medicaid dollars more effectively and efficiently in my opinion. and it's hsa based which you've heard some comments about hsas in the past which does encourage more proper utilization of the health care system by the person who has the coverage because they actually have some of their own financial resources at risk if they don't. my question will be about the plans offered under the exchanges. i mean, most of my questions have been answered about the technical aspects of what's
happening with these plans, but, i mean, many including yourself have commented about 100% premiums. what percentage of people on the exchanges approximately are subsidized people? what percentage of people or maybe the better question is that are getting coverage through the exchange don't get a subsidy? >> about 20%. >> so, 20% don't get a subsidy. >> that's about right. >> the premiums for those folks do you know what those are? what's the level of subsidy on average, for example, for a person on the exchange that's getting a subsidy? >> it's a tough question to answer. it depends if they're silver, gold, bronze and so forth and the income levels and a variety of factors. >> because, you know, my constituents are complaining about the deductibles also. and, again, the devil's in the details, right? if you pay 1 $100 for a premium and most likely you are being
subsidized thousands of dollars for your premium or maybe hundreds of dollars. but your deductible is $6,000 to $10,000. i would argue that those better plans than that were available before the affordable care act. and you could do that on the -- on the individual and small group marketplace almost before the affordable care act and do better with that lower deductibles, better premiums. so, i just -- i don't see where, you know, we've created a huge advantage. the only thing we've done as was pointed out we've mandated that people buy coverage. so, the question in my view is, if someone has a deductible, say you're a family of four and, you know, you say only one parent is working, whether that's the man or the woman and they're a schoolteacher and they have a $10,000 deductible for their
family when they have maybe an annual income of $55,000, $60,000 a year, is that good health coverage? >> you and i have both been in health care a long time. >> yeah. >> my reflection would be prior to the affordable care act health plans had -- if you could get it, i mean, you didn't have a pre-existing condition, you had no regulated out of pocket maximum, you had higher rates of increase and you could be dropped at any time. now you have -- >> yeah, that is true. >> 80% of folks have coverage outside of the deductible. and there's a whole array of options and services today. so, by my estimation and by the people that we interact with who are getting coverage, you know, their lives are better today. notwithstanding your points about we have an affordability crisis in this country. we have -- and not have been can afford all the services that they need, those are very legitimate concerns and we share them. >> fair enough. what i was trying to point out with my deductible question is
you could have gotten a policy with these type of deductibles and these type of premiums before the affordable care act without massive subsidies from the federal taxpayer subsidizing the premium to keep the premium low. and i think that's -- that's a fair statement. of course, you know, there's always exceptions to every rule. but my -- again, the other concern i have is with the exchanges, my time is up, i'll make this brief comment and then i'll yield. i'm hearing from hospitals and providers, the number one area of accounts receivable that they're starting to see is from insured individuals, because they can't meet their deductibles, they can't pay that, so we've created a different problem. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. recognize the gentleman from north dakota, mr. kramer, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. administrator, for being here, and your incredible
access. i appreciate that as does my staff. i'll shift gears a fair bit since i have this opportunity and it might not surprise you that i want to ask you about a discussion we had previously and that has since resulted in my dropping some legislation. that is last march when cms released an interim -- an interim rule -- interim final rule that gave authority to insurers that were offering plans on the exchange to deny nonprofit charities the opportunity to provide premium assistance and since patients with rare diseases and catastrophic illnesses are oftentimes the utilizers of this kind of charity, this rule has really had the effect of pushing individuals with pre-existing conditions off the health plans that they purchased in an exchange, so that really means fewer insured americans and more patients with complex conditions in the federal safety net. now, obviously under the aca the
law provides federal subsidies for health insurance we're discussing. why did the administration offer a rule to prevent americans for doing the same thing on a charity that the government does now? and, you know, since the release of the interim final rule i think there's something, like, 30 or 31 states that have announced a prohibition. this seems to be completely counterproductive to the goals of the aca, that's why i dropped the bill. it has already got very broad support. i could name names and you'd go, wow, that's a big swath. and most of us are between that swath. so, can you tell me something that would give me some encouragement that may not require the law or that you're going to support the law change? >> well, we share the same goal of trying to get everybody covered. and i appreciate your efforts in this area as well. because we have an interim proposed rule, i'm limited in what i can comment on the rule. but we do appreciate your input.
>> with that i think we'll just keep pushing for co-sponsors of the bill in trying to make it a law, because it really is broadly supported. both in congress and certainly in the public, so with that i have nothing further and would yield back. thank you. >> thank you. >> gentleman yields back. well, thank you. and in that case -- let me find my -- i just want to note, that in november 24th the committee sent a letter to cms regarding the failure 12 out of 23 co-ops or nonprofit insurers set up, they were funded by government-backed loans to the tune of $2 billion. the letter is due today, so i don't know if you have that in your briefcase or we would love to see that letter today. and you'll be complying with that request, then? >> we're working on your letter. absolutely. got a few of them to do, but it is a high priority. we'll anxious all your
questions. >> thank you. we'd like to get, as you, to get some answers to this so we need to pursue that and we'll receive the other documents we requested today, you've already stated that, so thank you. in conclusion, i want to thank you for coming today and the members that participated in today's hearings. i want to remind members they have ten business days to submit other questions for the regard and i also ask that you agree to respond promptly to those questions. with that, this subcommittee is adjourned. as 2015 wraps up, c-span presents congress, year in
review, a look back at all the news-making issues, debates and hearings that took center stage on capitol hill this year. join us thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern as we revisit mitch mcconnell taking his position as senate majority leader. pope francis' historic address to a joint session of congress. the resignation of house speaker john boehner and the election of paul ryan. the debate over the nuclear deal with iran and reaction from congress on mass shootings here and abroad, gun control, terrorism, and the rise of isis. congress, year in review, on c-span thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the second session of the 114th congress begins in january. the house is back for legislative work next tuesday, january 5th. among the items on the agenda, a budget reconciliation bill that would defund planned parenthood and repeal the affordable care
act. the senate has already approved the legislation and the president has said he would veto it. the senate rushes the following week on monday january 11th. senators will consider a u.s. circuit court nomination in pennsylvania and a bill from kentucky senator rand paul that would require an audit of the federal reserve. the house is live on c-span and the senate live on c-span 2. c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year our student cam documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all the details about our student cam contest at cspan.org. now on c-span3 a conversation on balancing liberty and security. we'll hear from a pakistani political scientist about
justice and democracy in the muslim world. from westminster college in missouri, this is an hour. >> good morning. it's nice to see this turnout. very good. okay. i am kate perry, i'm a second year ph.d. student in the political science department at the university of missouri and i have the great honor of introducing dr. hawk who taught me during my years getting my bachelor's degree at monmouth college. he was born in central pakistan and moved to the united states when she was 18 years old. she received her b.a. from suny and her ph.d. from cornell. she's a political science professor at monmouth college. she received neh awards to engage in advanced studies on topics of comparative religions
at harvard university, nationalism and ethnic politics at the university of madison -- or university of wisconsin at madison. islamic origins at the university of chicago, and an asian values debate at columbia university. she has also participated in almost a dozen midwest faculty seminars at university of chicago. she was a recipient of the burlington northern award for excellence in teaching and the fulbright teaching research scholarship. she has published in the area of ethnic politics, gender and politics, islam and human rights, and militarism and motherhood. she is a visiting scholar at woodrow wilson center in washington, d.c., for 2015-2016. she's working on a book project entitled "the state and secul secularizing sharia, politics in the age of the nation-state." on a more personal note dr. hawk has been a personal adviser, mentor and friend. i studied under her tutelage at
monmouth college. her care for my future led me to graduate school. following the completion of my m.a. dr. hawk was instrumental in giving me the opportunity to teach as an adjunct professor at monmouth for a year, cementing my love of teaching and opening my career to further graduate work. it is no exaggeration to say i would not be a thriving ph.d. student at the university of missouri today without the guidance and friendship of the brilliant and compassionate dr. hawk. >> good morning.
thank you, kate, for that wonderful introduction. it's students like you that make our life worthwhile, really, and so really excited to see that i have mostly students here. you're my kind of people. and so what i'm hoping, then, is to sort of conduct this in a little bit more informal way, this presentation. so, let me just say a couple of things first. i just came back from pakistan a couple of days ago, and so this is my bedtime right now, so i'm still getting over my jet lag, so if you see me in between completely losing my strand of my thoughts, that's because i'm still recovering from jet lag. the second thing i wanted to say was about professor tobias gibson who was instrumental in getting me invited to this.
we are still really a little upset with westminster college for stealing him away from us. i don't think we've quite gotten over that. and indeed, you're lucky to have him. he's a marvelous mentor, professor, friend. and so i just wanted to have a shout-out to him. okay. so, what do i want to do? what i want to do is i want to sort of tell you that i'm someone who lives in really two different places, in two different -- yeah, two different places and cultures. so i teach at monmouth college. i've been teaching there over 20 years, and i'm a midwesterner that way and i'm an american. but at the same time you heard i was 18 years old when we came to -- when we emigrated to the
united states. and so i was born and brought up in pakistan, and then i continued to have connection with pakistan because my research, ph.d. dissertation was on the islamist party in pakistan, and from then on i continued to be engaged in south asia in general, india a little bit but mostly with pakistan. so part of what i've done in the last many years is go in summers to teach at lahore university management sciences. so, i talk to students, american students, and i talk to pakistani students, undergraduate students as well as sort of do conduct my research, et cetera. so, i often -- i have this privileged position, then, to sort of really be able to see the world from these two
perspective, but that becomes really sort of multiple perspectives. so, that's a privilege. but it's really also a pain. because i'm one of those who's always interested in telling pakistanis they got to, you know, get their act together and stop blaming the u.s. for all their woes. and telling my american friends and, you know, students and audience, et cetera, about many of the sort of blind spots that we have about the muslim world in general and pakistan and how the mistakes that we're making. so, i'm always in some ways bearer of the bad news so to speak, but i think i'd much rather do that than to sort of have a myopic view of what's going on. and so what i want to do today, i'll take about 30, 35 minutes or so and lay out some thoughts
in terms of this whole issue of balancing. in u.s. we're calling it rebalancing the scales of, you know, liberty and security. but i'll tell you that in the context of pakistan, it's not rebalancing, it's constructing this balance, so the challenge there is quite different. and so i'll do, then, four things. i'll first talk a little bit about how the muslim world views this whole issue of security and liberty andtical particular what the place of muslim world has been in our american
struggle towards rebalancing these scales. then i'm going to talk about the war against terror and desire for security, but at the same time very much desire for liberty in the muslim world. and there i'm going to emphasize pakistan. i'll give you most of my examples will be from pakistan, but at the end i'm also going to talk about egypt a little bit because i think that that's important in the overall point that i want to make. and the overall point that i want to make basically, and i'll come back to the -- we're going to do some -- is that -- i'm sure there's an easy way to do this that -- i got it. no? so, how do i go -- >> let's try. >> oh, okay. okay. so, my overall message is really
very much sort of agreeing with the statement that president bush made in his second inaugural address, in which he said we are led by events and common sense to one conclusion, the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. i think that that is a very wise statement given the world that we live in. this much cliched borderless, globalized world. if we are to have our liberty and our security in the united states, we must pay attention to liberty and security of people in other places. so, just getting back for a moment, too. so, there's a deep confusion in the muslim world when it comes
to thinking about post-9/11 world and this concept of freedom, liberty. often, you know, after 9/11 there was often this question that was raised, why do they hate us. there are several. if you put that in google and go to the images there, you will see that there were several magazines that had their cover with this question and variety of answers that were proposed. so, one of the answers that was given was, well, they hate us for our way of life. they hate us for our freedom. "they" meaning here were often, you know, extremist groups like al qaeda, but sometime it was "they" stood for all of the muslim world. so, it could be a very expansive
category this "they." so, let me tell you one thing. i don't think "they" the muslims, hate us for our freedom. they may not like some aspects of our freedom, so let me make sort of a distinction. they may have some -- "they" meaning particularly now sort of mainstream majority muslims. they may have some qualms about our sort of, you know, cultural practices, the way gender relationships work in the west, et cetera, but that does not mean that they don't like political freedom. so, i want to make a distinction between political freedom and sort of cultural behavior and
morray mo mores and all of that. the vast majority of the muslim world embraces political freedom, embraces the idea of rule of law, embraces the idea of freedom to assemble and freedom to vote and freedom to practice your religion, et cetera. now, some of them may not always practice it in the best way, but they definitely embrace this idea. so, they do not hate us for our political freedoms. i think that's the first thing to sort of put -- keep in mind. so, when it comes to rebalancing the scale of security and liberty, the view from muslim world is indeed grim and complex. there are many in the muslim world who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, meant to damage muslims of the world. without buying the first part of this assertion, which i absolutely don't buy -- just want to make that clear -- one can see why the second half of the statement may have a great deal of purchase for the muslim
world. in the last 14 years, loss of life and limbs and destruction of property experienced by muslim -- muslims far outweighs that experienced by people of other faith. many parts of the muslim world have been pushed into a world of near anarchy where life can be short, brutish and nasty. all i have to think about is hundreds of thousands of people who are displaced in pakistan because there is a military operation going on to root out extremism in the so-called federal territories or fatah or north and south waziristan. one have -- all one has to do is to think about vast territories in iraq where people are living under extremely grim conditions. many of those areas controlled by isil. all one has to do is to think about what's going on in syria right now and how life must be
that it pushes people to take their small kids and try to cross very dangerous seas in order to get to a safer place. all of that are just examples of how difficult right now life is for many, many millions of muslims throughout the muslim world. so, for them post-9/11 world has been a disaster. so, the following statement that i just showed you earlier -- let me go back to that -- by president bush at his second inaugural address shows there has been much talk about bringing liberty to lands, mostly occupied by muslim that do not otherwise have a tradition of this kind of, you know, freedom or liberty. but muslims have played a double and, therefore, confusing role in this battle for liberty while maintaining security. thus, we have this paradoxical
situation in which the liberty of many must be taken away because muslims pose a serious threat to western liberty and the only cure for muslim extremism is bringing liberty to muslim masses. and so, you know, we want to -- we cherish our liberty. we think it's a wonderful thing and as president bush's statement shows, the only way we can maintain our liberty is by giving this wonderful gift to the rest of the world. but in doing that, there are a lot of people who hate our liberty and, therefore, we have to take their liberty away, or at least we have to sort of emphasize security against them. so, this -- this constant sort of difficulty in clearly thinking through us and them, you know, who are them, who are really danger to our democracy
and freedom, what kind of danger they pose. not enough critical thinking has been done on that question. so, then, we can see why the muslim world is very confused. because on the one hand they see the images of things like guantanamo bay. if you think about it it's a place akin to immediate evil dungeon where one can be imprisoned for decades without any process to determine guilt or innocence. so, in that sense it takes us very much before the, you know, even time of -- close to time of magna carta or something. just not what's going on in guantanamo bay undermines all of the wonderful progress that had been made that our earlier presenter was talking about in terms of fourth amendment, et cetera. then we, of course, have had
earlier in our fight against terrorism this whole practice of renditions where we could fly suspects to friendly countries that had lack -- that were not really too queasy about using torture in order to extract information. and so there are many, many such, you know, powerful examples of how we have violated our own traditions of liberty and freedom and rule of law, with the idea that we need to do that in order to protect security and in order to protect our way of life in the long run. but at the same time, you know, we have been constantly really kind of lecturing the muslim world about democracy, about liberty, about rule of law. and so this very contradictory stance has created cynicism and deep confusion among muslims as
far as their relationship is concerned to the west. so, even though this double talk has created deep confusion, it has benefitted in the muslim world forces that are less friendly to liberty, and that's what concerns me the most about this fight against terrorism and all the various things that have gone in the name of doing that. so, when i'm talking about forces less friendly to liberty, i don't simply mean extremist groups like al qaeda and isil. though they have thrived in this very confusing world. i mean more authoritarian state tendencies particularly bringing militaries back into politics in places like pakistan and egypt where people had struggled very much to -- to construct democratic institutions. so, as i said earlier, right now
security is a huge concern for many parts of the muslim world. let me talk specifically about pakistan. pakistan is the top -- part of the top three countries, iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan where there have been the most terrorist attacks, the highest number of casualties and sort f of -- that pakistan is on the front line of this fight and this sense of lack of security. so, i told you i'm going to be a little discombobulated but -- okay.
okay. so, just quickly deaths by victims categories. there are, of course, vast majority of them are civilian. this is just 2011. and it's actually number not just for pakistan but for the world. but it sort of mirrors what was going on in pakistan, too. the one important point that i would want to make out of that, this graph, is that if you look at it, of course, civilians are the highest number of casualties. there are also significant number that are children. but if you look at in terms of people who are fighting against the terrorists, law enforcement, there you see that, yes, there are military and security forces that have been killed in this fight against terror, but that the police in this graph, they are much higher number. there are more police that gets
killed in this fight than the military. that point is important because what i want to talk about in terms of pakistan is how -- since december, 2014, there has been a significant shift in trying to fight against terrorism. and the shift has occurred, because i don't know some of you might have heard about this, there was -- so, there have been many, many terrorist attacks in pakistan before this december, 2014, so why did this particular attack become such a turning point? there was an attack by terrorists in this public school. so, the fact is that these were children, and that attackers
engaged in particular act of brutality against some of the teachers and students. that's part of the reason why there was so much attention paid to this and it became a turning point. pakistanis have called this our 9/11. but i also want to underline that the fact that it was army public school is what really tipped the balance and so that becomes important in terms of who benefitted the most from this turning -- the public turning their attention to being determined to fight this battle against terrorists. so, television coverage eager to feed the beast of 24 hours news machine, eagerly swooped in to feed off this tragedy. there were emotionally charged public service messages, there were anthems sung by young kids shaming the attackers for picking fights with children. there were the constant loops of footage showing desperate mothers running barefoot to try
to find out what happened to their children. and there were pictures of young teenagers taken from their social websites who had now joined the ever-increasing role of martyrs in pakistan. and so this attack in december, 2014, then, became a turning point because the whole sort of nation, country, was now emotionally at this heightened state very similar to what we saw after 9/11 in united states, and there was this determined -- determination that they were ready to do whatever it will take to get rid of the terrorists. and in this instance the group that had claimed the responsibility is called the ttp. but there are, you know, they're one of the sad things about what's going on in pakistanpnp to some extent in afghanistan, too, is that there are just many groups. and there are lots of sort of
confusion about who is standing for whom on the ground. okay. so, my -- one of my most important concern when it comes to balancing the scale of liberty and freedom -- and security is that pakistan as a developing country, as a third world country, as many of the other muslim countries are, is still at the very, very early stages of establishing political institutions, that will create rule of law, that would create some sort of, you know, democratic norms and institutions, et cetera, so that that once scale of liberty is under construction.
forces that stand for security to actually undermine that very early, very delicate process of building democratic institutions. so, in pakistan, for example, you know, we have had often military takeover. politics pakistan in over 65 years of its history military has taken over several times. the democratic institutions have had a really, really hard time getting off the ground. and so any process that ends up strengthening the military and weakening civilian and democratic institutions from my perspective is really destructive for this construction of liberty, the scale of liberty that we have been talking about. so, anyway, what happened after
this attack? well, what happened was that there was tremendous glorification of the military. and so here you see, this is the pakistan's top military guy, general sharif. he -- after the attack he went and visited the army public school and met the students. the interesting thing about this picture is that you see this picture and you see it all over. it was on the front pages of newspapers. it was all over people's facebook news feed, et cetera. what you didn't see was the other sharif. there is prime minister sharif, who had also gone and visited the schoolchildren. but there was not much attention paid to that visit. so, that's just only an example of what had happened in terms of
after this army public school attack, the military getting great deal of attention, great deal of glory, and the civilian government, the democratically elected government of sharif really going into the background. the question is why is that. part of the reason is really very understandable. when you're living in a very insecure world -- in fact, one of the harvard scholars, joe nye, put it in a very memorable way. he talked about how security's like oxygen. you take it for granted. but you don't think about breathing. we just breathe. but when somebody takes away our oxygen, all we can think about is security. all we can think about is oxygen. and so for many parts of the muslim world, security, the desire -- you know, is right now the most fundamental thing. they want to make sure, you know, that their kids are safe,
that they're sort of -- their life and limbs are safe, that they have, you know, some sort of basic security. and for that, they are very willing to trade away their rights of privacy, their rights of something that we saw this similar kind of bargain in united states after 9/11. so, just like after 9/11, the attack in the united states, president bush's approval ratings were enhanced, and it created the space for the united states to launch a preemptive war against iraq. similarly, in pakistan the army public school attack greatly enhanced the military's power and prestige in comparison to the civilian, democratically elected government. it has given security agencies like the infamous isi a blank check to arrest, detain, use
enhanced interrogation techniques and kill anyone it deems to be a terrorist. no wonder there are conspiracy theorists who see such events staged by the deep state. because it seems this attack -- of course, they didn't do this, that's silly. but what happens is i can understand when people engage in this sort of conspiracy theory thinking because what happens certain forces get so much benefit from an event that you start to think, god, you know, maybe they had something to do with it. and that's what, at least some people started to wonder in terms of this attack on army school. of course, the pakistani military did not have anything to do with it, but what pakistani military had done for many decades now is to sort of create relationship with certain jihadi groups and use them as strategic asset, and some of that was coming back as a blowback to -- to impact pakistan. okay.
all right. so, the other thing about -- so, the first thing i want to say about the view from pakistan is that given that in the very early stage of establishing democratic institutions, any kind of threat to security ends up really damaging that very delicate process, because people start to glorify the military. they're yearning for stability and for security, et cetera, and they're willing to give up lot of their rights in order to achieve that. and the second thing i want to -- the second point i want to make is that in this sort of rush to get security, there were lots of changes made, and i'll talk about some of them just very shortly, that ended up creating a situation in which on the one hand there was tremendous glorification of the military and the nation and sort
of, you know, patriotism, that's the picture on the right side over there are soldiers who have been killed in this military operation that pakistani coffins there. and of course the military is making the sacrifice. don't want to take that away from it, but at the same time there are really hundreds, if not thousands, of people that are being killed, detained for a long time, tortured. and so the picture on the other side is of a father sort of grieving his 18-year-old son who was hung, given capital punishment.
but there are lots of sort of unnamed graves where those who are lying in that grave, maybe some of them were the bad guys. they deserved that, but it's really not clear. we don't have good mechanisms. we don't have good ways of really judging of whether that's the case or not. to me, that's sort of a very poignant picture where the father is grieving and he insists that his son is innocent. but he's not been given fair trial, so we don't know if he is innocent or not. the first thing that happened after the attack is that the death penalty that had been suspended in pakistan by the previous democratically elected government was reinstated immediately because people were -- they wanted revenge. there were several dozen
terrorists who were on death row because the death penalty was suspended. people wanted to see them hanging. many of them said we want to see them hanging in the public square. again, i sort of have some sympathy for that desire for revenge, but again the only problem is that given a very underdeveloped criminal justice system in pakistan, it's not clear that many thousands of those on death row really ever got a fair trial. one of the reasons that this was suspended by earlier government was because there had been a lot of criticism by human rights groups about the process that had led to people given death penalty. the idea was the government was going to review a lot of these cases because many innocent
people might have been given death penalty. once you had that highly emotional attack of the event against the army public school, death penalty is revived. it was not just terrorists that were given the death penalty. i think there have been over 300 people that have been hung since then. thinking about that grave we're not sure if really only the guilty ones have been caught in this. one of the things that happened after army public school, pakistanis constructing it as their 9/11 and focusing in now on doing something about terrorism, they come up with this idea of national action plan and create a constitutional amendment. it was the 21st constitutional amendment to create military courts.ñr the idea was that previously the
civilian courts had often let these terrorists go free because they were not able to get the right evidence or they were threatened. there had been judges and lawyers that had been killed by terrorists, so the only way of getting rid of this scourge of terrorism was by having military courts. that's problematic because you have a democratic government. you have a constitution. the civilian institutions should be able to handle these cases, but once again this was a way that military was reasserting itself. some people have called this soft coups. because now the military is now interested in getting rid of the democratically elected government and becoming the front face of power but nonetheless are the most influential actor playing the role from behind the scene. and that really works out well for the military because what happens is basically a lot of
the problems in society -- the gas is too expensive. there is shortage of food. there's a lot of corruption. electricity is often gone. all of those problems people blame it on the government and the government is, of course, the democratically elected civilian government, but anything that might be good that's going on -- we're fighting against the terrorists. our brave soldiers are making sacrifices. the military is engaged in cleaning up corrupt practices in various places, most importantly in the largest city in pakistan, all that glory and praise is heaped upon the military and in particular the general. so this becomes a way for military to continue to exercise a lot of influence without having some of the blow back of
being actually in power. so as this international crisis report sort of concluded, though, all this national action plan creating a constitutional amendment to have military courts, they have not necessarily achieved the objective. the objective, i think, almost all pakistanis support that objective, which is to try to get rid of the terrorist elements and the various jihadi groups in pakistan. instead often some of these new military courts and new ways of operating in law enforcement have been used actually to either suppress certain ethnic groups or to try to sort of contain certain political parties like in karachi. one of the main political parties have been brought under this whole new law enforcement
where a lot of their leaders have been arrested, et cetera. the problem is when you talk to ordinary pakistanis, they like this. they're tired of corruption of politicians. karachi had tremendous amount of instability and violence and organized crime and gangs and all that. again for people, the desire of security, they're happy if the military comes in and cleans the operation. i understand that, but the political scientist in me sort of looks at that and really worries deeply because what that means is that it's once again given the history of pakistan this glorification of military means the military is so powerful and well entrenched in pakistan's political system gets strengthened further.
that democratic process gets weaker. that's one of the main points that i want to make about this. okay. all right. this fight against terrorism then has been used to clean up a lot of things in pakistan. so this is a picture -- i was actually in islamabad when this happened. islamabad, which is the capital city of pakistan, has these slum areas, we might call them. in pakistan, these are irregular people who are desperate to find a place to live. they construct some temporary housing there. the capital development quality
decided there was enough of that. they were going to go in and clean up these areas. mostly what that meant was to demolish all these temporary housing of hundreds of thousands of people and throw their stuff out and basically leave them with no shelter. so this is a picture of that operation clean up. so you see this younger kid being manhandled by the police. and there are lots of these kind of pictures where basically these people were made homeless. now the reason i show you this is because the way -- there was a lot of outcry against this. there are still groups in pakistan that focus on ngos, human rights of the poor. there was a lot of criticism of
this. there was a hearing in the pakistani parliament about why this happened, how this happened. the inspector general used the framework of terrorism to justify this. he basically said that many of the people who are living there are unregistered. many of them are refugees. we simply need to sort of make sure that we know who lives where in order to secure ourselves, so that's why we had done it. of course, i can understand that. there are hundreds of thousands of refugees and some of them could be engaged in terrorist practices, but really balancing that with hundreds of thousands of people being extremely poor impoverished people being thrown out of whatever temporary shelter they had, that's the
kind of frustrating situation that we face in pakistan. very quickly, there's also an electronic surveillance bill that got pasted in pakistan after this army public attack. and so basically what you see iñ very much the process that was described in the earlier talk happening in pakistan where there are a lot of agencies, element agencies, but most prominently the isi that has been gathering -- moving towards mass capture and storage of communication of ordinary citizens. and so pakistan is one of the biggest partners of the united states when it comes to international surveillance. it has been cooperating with nsa in capturing data, so that's
also a huge problem for pakistan. a problem in what way? of course, i'm very much convinced by the presentation that we had earlier about what the government is now doing is not reasonable in terms of search and seizure, but in pakistan it becomes much more of a problem for two reasons. first, you have a government that is not very efficient. it's under resourced. police doesn't have enough training. there's lots of problems in inefficiency. they may gather all this data. doesn't mean necessarily they're going to really be able to capture the bad guys, so to speak, out of that. but there's a much higher level of danger that this kind of dalt would be used to suppress minority groups, to suppress
undesirable political speech, et cetera. so it becomes much more of a problem in pakistan. let me just quickly go to egypt. this egypt now. in pakistan at least the military is trying to have some sort of a constitutional cover for its soft coups. in egypt, there is no pretense. remember egypt in 2011 we had the arab spring. there was so much hope for liberty and democracy and all that. things have become really grim in egypt right now. that's because the military is absolutely intent on taking away any notion of liberty in egypt because from their perspective they are securing people. and so this is just one example. 529 muslim brotherhood people sentenced for killing one officer.
i said earlier and i don't have enough time to unpack this but the problem is the moment you say muslim brotherhood, for many that's guilty as charged. they are muslim brotherhood. they are islamists, so they must be involved in terrorist activities. that's absolutely not the case, at least in egypt, because the vast majority of them had been very moderate. but their moderation might not stay for very long. in a situation like this in six to seven months you had thousands of people killed at protests, and you had hundreds and thousands of people arrested. in those kind of situations -- the top graph is the state violence against protesters, right? the bottom graph is now response
by the state groups responding to that terrorism. so the numbers right now, the state people are killing a lot more people than the terrorists are. if the state continues to kill people indiscriminately and imprison people and take away their liberty, then soon this might very much be flipped. yesterday some of you might have heard this news. there were several mexican tourists in egypt that were killed. they were at this sinai desert, which is a place where a lot of tourists go because there are amazing rock formation and all of that. a military gun ship started to shoot them, and so 18 of them died. right now there's all this kind of a controversy because the
government, which is the military, is saying these tourists were not supposed to be there anyway. we were conducting operations against terrorists and the tourist agency is saying absolutely not. we had all the permit. we had sort of taken groups there all the time. anyway, but think about -- we don't see this. this is not in the front page of the news, but egypt is conducting military operations like that where it is just shooting at groups of people, mistaking tourists for terrorists? so the point then, to let me conclude, is that unfortunately post-9/11 world has not only brought a lot of insecurity for the muslim world. it also has pushed back the possibility of liberty or