UN:DHIMMI
Corruption and Islam, not poverty, fuel extremism in Pakistan
Another reason (as if one were needed) to shut off the money taps to this treacherous neo-failed state. (Tip o’ the hat to our good friends at TROP for this):
Spending millions of pounds on development in Pakistan will do nothing to keep young men out of the clutches of the Taliban, according to an extensive survey of Pakistani attitudes towards extremism which will deepen the row over Britain’s aid budget.
The study, conducted by researchers from prestigious American universities, found no link between poverty and support for militant groups.
The findings undermine a central pillar of the Conservative government’s radical new policy on aid, which will deliver almost £1.4bn to Pakistan over the next five years as part of a strategy to protect Britain from terrorist attack.
On Wednesday, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, spelled out the policy to a jeering audience of police officers, who face pay cuts while extra cash is earmarked for Pakistan.
“If you get aid right in certain parts of the world, such as Pakistan, it will reduce the possibility of terrorism on the streets of the UK,” she said.
Christine Fair, a South Asia expert at Georgetown University and one of the authors of the new paper, said there was no evidence for such sweeping assertions and that her study of 6,000 people suggested that poorer Pakistanis were actually less likely to support extremist groups than more affluent, better educated people.
“The terrorism literature has long held that poverty does not explain terrorism,” she told The Daily Telegraph. “Yet despite what would be a fairly robust body of literature, both the British government and the American government, have put together this canard that we can buy our way out of terrorism by investing in education and so forth. We simply don’t find this.”
Andrew Mitchell, who became International Development Secretary last year, has repeatedly talked of putting national security at the heart of aid policy.
With domestic budgets being cut, the argument has been deployed to justify continuing to spend money overseas – even in Pakistan, a middle income country where few people pay tax and the government spends more than £4bn on its Army and nuclear arsenal each year.
In March, a review of British overseas declared, “Tackling extreme poverty in Pakistan will help make the UK safer,” as ministers announced they would more than double the amount of cash for the terrorist-hit country – to £446m in 2015, so long as certain benchmarks are met.
However, development agencies such as Oxfam have warned that such moves are wrongheaded and that money should be spent purely to help those in need – not to protect Britain.
The new research, the first of its kind and published by the Social Science Research Network, suggests the money will not even help make Britain more secure. In an “endorsement experiment”, respondents were asked how much they supported different policies – the use of peace jirgas or reform of school curricula for example.
A test group was told the policies were connected with Kashmiri terror groups or the Afghan Taliban.
The difference between their responses and those of a control group, which was not told of any connection, was taken as a measure of support for the militant groups.
The difference between their responses and those of a control group, which was not told of any connection, was taken as a measure of support for the militant groups.
When compared with socio-economic indicators, the researchers found poorer people were less likely to support extremist politics.
The paper concluded that poorer people in Pakistan were more likely to be the victims of suicide bombings and other terror attacks, and therefore were more likely to have negative feelings towards militants.
“This does mean there aren’t good reasons to invest in education and poverty mitigation. There are perfectly good reasons to do that [what are they? Where's the donor payoff? - Ed]. But if you are doing it with the explicit goal of buying security at home, there is not a lot of evidence,” said Dr Fair. “None at all.”
Andrew Mitchell, International Development Secretary, insisted that countries lacking education and mired in poverty were the least stable.
“Improving governance, security and the rule of law, matched with better opportunities in terms of education and jobs, means we are lifting people out of extreme poverty and addressing grievances that can lead people towards extremism,” he said.
“It is too narrow to consider this issue simply in terms of financial poverty and extremism. It is vital to consider a wider range of issues that can lead to instability and extremism, including local grievances and poor education.”
It’s really very simple. Corruption and Islam are the root causes of extremism in Pakistan, not poverty (despite what Libtards might claim).
Little, if any, of the billions donated by the US, the UK, EU and other developed nations actually reaches the people it is intended for. It goes to corrupt politicians and go-betweens. And with new evidence that poorer people are actually less likely to be extremists, surely a new approach is needed?
One of the reasons (other than the obvious stifling of innovation and business present in almost every Islamic country) Pakistan is so dirt poor is that the élites are rich. Filthy rich – and they pay no taxes.
They have all they need through corruption and graft (aid and otherwise) – so where is the incentive for economic stimulation when it neither really affects nor enriches them?
There is therefore no economic ‘trickle-down effect’ to the less well-off. Furthermore, the élites also know that we’ll keep the funnel full, becausewe’re scared of the nukes.
So we at Un:dhimmi are proposing a different approach. Based on the evidence in front of us, it is clear that Pakistan represents a clear and present danger to the rest of the (non-Muslim) world. It should be approached on four tracks:
a) A crackdown on non-taxpayers – based on last year’s figures, anyone in Pakistan earning over about $3500 per year should pay tax. Hardly anyone does.
b) The immediate cessation of Pakistani immigration to G20 countries.
c) Given that all of the present non-Muslim donors to Pakistan are, to say the least, somewhat strapped for cash at the moment, all aid to Pakistan should be discontinued, until it dismantles its nuclear capability.
d) If this does not happen within a specified timeframe, that nuclear facility, in the name of humanity, should be denied by a UN Security Council resolution – and the money tap not switched back on
Then we’ll send Dr. Fair back in to analyse the data. Sound good to you?
[Source: The Telegraph]
