Host, Dr. Fareed Younos: [Recitation in Arabic salutation for Prophet Mohammad].

Dr. Fareed Younos: Tonight’s topic is ‘Globalization and Americanization in Afghanistan.’ Starting in 1838 or 1839 Afghanistan served in the world as a buffer zone especially in Central Asia and Asia. Due to this buffer zone status, Afghanistan became sandwiched between east and west. In the beginning it was czarist Russia and the powerful Britain. Then the USSR and the United States replace this rivalry. After WWII, America took control of the world economy in New York and this is how America got involved somehow in world politics too. Afghanistan has always tried to play a sensible role but unfortunately this role of sensibility and impartiality was never sustainable. That’s why there were always superpower tussles in the region and Afghanistan was under pressure. Sometimes Afghanistan leaned towards one side of the buffer zone where the British were or the other was the USSR or today’s Russia. The result was that after a few tussles, almost all of the economic policies of Afghanistan were destined to the USSR such as the Salang tunnel, Ghaziabad farm, Microrayan apartments, and the military forces of Afghanistan were completely supervised and subsidized by the Russians. Of course, the USA was supporting Pakistan in order to maintain the British policy of not letting the Russians reach a warm water port. Eventually the policy failed to deter the Russians from invading Afghanistan in 1979. And the aftermath of this, we all know what happened. Then again the buffer zone became an area of continued rivalries. The Americans supported the Mujahidin forces and supplied weapons so they can confront the Russians. Of course, the Russians failed and retreated. Finally, the Americans brought to power the Taliban because of gas, petroleum, and other economic interests in Central Asia. And the result of this, everyone knows. Finally, when September 11^th transpired the Americans failed in their policy. This became a reason for America to enter Afghanistan. Now, some people think that Afghanistan is under foreign occupation and another group thinks that an international force was needed to enter Afghanistan in order to rescue the country from the misery stricken and dreadful civil war. This fact does not need further explanation, as many of you know these reasons well.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Tonight we have a guest, Hekmat Sadat who is a well-informed and socially active young man. I heard one of his sophisticated lectures at a conference in northern California. Currently, he teaches as visiting professor in the political science department at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. He received his MA in Economics and is currently working on his PhD in Education. He is also a senior writer for AfghanMagazine.com serving as writer and advisor to the digest.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Mr. Sadat, can you hear me?

Hekmat Sadat: Yes, greetings Dr. Younos and to all the listeners.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Hello Mr. Sadat and welcome to the show. I heard a lecture of yours in the early part of this year at a reconstruction conference. I truly enjoyed it and you discussed the topic very pleasingly. I want you to explain some subjects. Firstly, what is the difference between Globalization and Americanization? As you know now, some people including myself are worried about globalization in Afghanistan. We do not want Afghanistan ending up like other developing countries such as those in Latin America who have entered the economic circle of America. We fear that a few sky scrappers are going to be built in Kabul under the guise of democracy, freedom, liberation, and globalization while the rest of the country and its people will suffer from scarcity, hunger, poverty, and disorganization. What is the difference of between globalization and Americanization?

Hekmat Sadat: Dr. Younos, globalization is a multidimensional system affecting all aspects such as social, cultural, environmental, and relations between governments and nations. Globalization as an academic research field has been around for only a few decades but flourished after the end of the Cold War when a bipolar political system was replaced by a unipolar political system. Americanization originally referred to the integration of immigrants between 1880 and 1915 into the melting pot of America. Since America is the most influential nation and people in the world, the mechanism of globalization now helps to promote Americanization throughout the world. Americanization takes an expanded meaning of becoming American or imitating Americans either culturally, politically, or economic throughout the world.

Dr. Fareed Younos: In a previous issue of The Economist, I read an article about “The American Empire.” So, is this Americanization in relation to globalization a new empire like that of the Romans, Ottoman Turks, or Greeks? So, do we have an American empire in the 21^st century?

Hekmat Sadat: In the outer features, this is not the same but Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree that Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market will never work without a hidden first. Basically, McDonald’s cannot make profit unless Boeing profits as well. Some even go as far as to say that globalization has the ears of Mickey Mouse, drinks Coca-Cola, eats BicMacs, listens to Michael Jackson, and wears Levis and Nike.

Dr. Fareed Younos: So, do you think we are at the dawn of a new empire? Will American democracy or globalization advance forward parallel to each other?

Hekmat Sadat: Well, globalization is a mechanism that today has fallen into the use of corporations some of whom we are in discontent with. Hence, globalization has gotten a bad reputation. On the contrary, globalization has positive elements that I can describe.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Is there no negative side if Afghanistan is sucked into the American economic system and every economic American policy is forced upon Afghanistan? Do you think this is right or feasible for a developing country?

Hekmat Sadat: Well, the major externalities of globalization relate to the economic issues. Dr. Joseph Stiglitz from Columbia University and former Chief Economist at the World Bank in his book Globalization and its Discontents wrote that one of the problems of the world is everyone wants to open their doors and benefit from the positive elements of globalization and reject or repel the externalities. Herein lies the economic and social dilemma for developing countries. Developing countries open their trading doors, deregulate their financial markets, abruptly privatize national enterprises, disrupt the accustomed economic growth rate, foreign investment destroys existing companies because there is no longer government protection for the domestic market, subsequently a liberal market opens wherein companies through mergers and acquisitions prey on small companies killing the entrepreneurial prospects of the locals.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Mr. Sadat, what is the long-term view of globalization in Afghanistan?

Hekmat Sadat: There are two views. One view belongs to those who are interested in the positive aspects of globalization. For example, the economy in Afghanistan lies in total devastation. Even before the Afghan-Soviet war, the economic situation of Afghanistan was terrible. There was famine in the north and in the south international projects failed in Helmand. Afghanistan had a feudal economy. Even without globalization, Afghanistan can not compete with its neighbors. So, what Afghanistan benefits from globalization include the following: 1) demands for accountability, 2) demands for transparency, 3) human rights, 4) democratic governance, 5) economizing of scale between regions and provinces reducing costs by working through a central government, 6) and telecommunication and transportation advances.

Dr. Fareed Younos: What are the pitfalls of globalization?

Hekmat Sadat: The problems of globalization are numerous and some of which we already discussed. Think of globalization acting as a magnifying glass. Local wars such as the Afghan conflict protract into major global clashes between civilizations. Just think, on September 11^th, 4 attacks of terrorism hundreds of miles apart could no longer be classified as isolated incidents. A man holed in a cave directed 19 foreign students in America to hijack some planes. This is one of the problems of globalization. As a result of globalization, people are freer to travel as there are virtual no barriers. The good and bad can travel; good products and bad products came be exported and imported, and progressive ideologies as well as those that cause the misery to people. Another problem is corporate imperialism. For example, Nike goes to Pakistan to produce shoes but that it exploits the workers, some of whom are 5 year olds earning 20 cents a day, which raises little eyebrows.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Isn’t this is a sort of exploitation of men by men?

Hekmat Sadat: Yes. Corporations are made up by men and hence more responsible. For example, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, McDonalds went to Russia. The average Russian worked 3 days in order to buy a BicMac. This exact point is one of the flaws of globalization. Some Russians said you come to our country in this imperial fashion and invade our culture. What is wrong with a Russian burger or German burger?

Dr. Fareed Younos: Or our chapli kabob.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Mr. Sadat, I am glad that I have you on the line tonight. What is the relationship between globalization and nation-building?

Hekmat Sadat: Thomas Friedman went to Afghanistan after the Afghan Interim Administration took power. He wrote that my first impression of Kabul was that it was Ground Zero. The phrase that kept coming to him was that about half of downtown Kabul looked exactly like Ground Zero at the World Trade Center as if a piece of cake had been smashed by a large first. One of the reasons that Afghanistan ordained such a fate was because Afghans never became an iron fist against globalization in the form of foreign countries’ exploitation and interference.

Dr. Fareed Younos: National unity on all issues is the condition for success.

Hekmat Sadat: Yes. Friedman says this is one of the problems of Afghanistan; it is our duty to weave together this country. Anatol Lieven from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said a few weeks after September 11^th that we must make a showcase example of Afghanistan. We had created destruction there so let’s try to help them to stand on their feet as well as become a beachhead of democracy and progress in the Muslim world.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Mr. Sadat, you mentioned Muslim world. Do you think as an economist and an Afghan growing up in America that there is a cultural issue wherein globalization contradicts with Islam?

Hekmat Sadat: Well, Islam or should we say Muslims who have a 1 billion population on this earth are different from other various religions. For example, if you were to take a lot at the Jewish people, you would notice that they are a united religion because they have the same music, language and so on. Now, Afghans don’t know Arabic the way Arabs know it. Hence, Afghans have an Islamic culture and an Afghan culture that are intertwined very tightly. When globalization comes to a Jewish country like Israel it can not fragment it because Israel has closely knitted itself in many facets. On the other hand when you long at the Muslim world from Morocco to the Philippines, when globalization comes it seeks out some cracks in these dual-cultural countries. In a sense it exploits this dichotomy. As a result, the Muslim world becomes shattered and disunity rises from within the country and against each other countries.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Then is this a sound of alarm or what?

Hekmat Sadat: Well, globalization is for the use of all people. Now, if Muslims are interested in becoming united then they need to use globalization as a vehicle to create an Islamic nation. If it is a negative form, then Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups will be the result. If it is a positive form, then it will be like the third time Islam came to Afghanistan vis-à-vis peaceful missionaries. Or it could come in the form of the renaissance that came during the University of Baghdad and Samarkand or even the Ghaznavid’s royal court where the likes of Ferdowsi, Sanai, Al-Beruni, Ibn Sina and other scholars from the Muslim world came to meet, discuss, and report back to their people.

Dr. Fareed Younos: I have a question about the Marshall Plan and before we ask Mr. Sadat about it, I want to talk about it briefly. The Marshall Plan was an economic aid package from America to Europe after WWII, which was passed by the US Congress. They call it Marshall Plan because it was named after George Marshall who was then the American Secretary of State. The interest point in the Marshall Plan was that the USSR rejected it but other European nations accepted this plan. The Marshall Plan cost about 13.5 billion dollars at that time which was mainly for reconstructing Europe. I remember when I was in the university, one of our professors told us that America had to create the Marshall Plan for Europe so it maintains its economic connection, otherwise, capitalism without an outside connection will itself be destroyed. The same strategy was done by the Soviets in the fashion of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc and made its economic force. Mr. Sadat, I am hopeful that I have not mistaken regarding the Marshall Plan?

Hekmat Sadat: No, you were very precise.

Dr. Fareed Younos: How do you see the Marshall Plan in the mirror of globalization? Will Afghanistan benefit from a Marshall Plan? Has there been a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan? Has there even been any long-term project spending in Afghanistan?

Hekmat Sadat: The President of America, Mr. Bush, at the Virginia Military Institute where George Marshall graduated on April 2002 said regarding Afghanistan that “We are working in the best traditions of George Marshall.” Nonetheless, as you stated a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan was never created. To understand the Marshall Plan, we need to differentiate between the plan intended for Europe and Afghanistan. The Marshall Plan was given to reconstruct Germany and Japan but primarily Germany. However, Germany was already an industrial nation, only its infrastructure was destroyed and unfortunately a couple of million people were killed. However, they had the tradition of democracy. It was through this system that the fascists came to power. Furthermore, they did not need America’s help in industrialization. Japan is a different scenario. Japan was a feudal nation similar to the likeness of Afghanistan. In Japan, General MacArthur acting as a ruler for a few years similar to how Paul Bremer is governing Iraq today.

Dr. Fareed Younos: MacArthur was the American general to whom the Japanese gave their surrender treaties after the war, right? That is why MacArthur is very famous in American history.

Hekmat Sadat: Yes, he helped transform the feudal society of Japan. One of the things he accomplished was creating the laws and systems of landownership. Like in Afghanistan, this issue was a dilemma for the Japanese as to how does this topic becomes debatable so that landowners, feudal lords, and others don’t become irate. We see in Afghan history especially in the last 20 or 30 years this issue has been a topic, which led to the downfall of governments. Now getting back to Europe. In 1947 the Marshall Plan was given to Germany as you mentioned 13.5 billion dollars over 5 years, which equates to about 70 billion dollars. Now, how much money has Afghanistan receive or been pledged. About 11 billion dollars which is about 10 percent of what the Marshall Plan entailed. At the 2002 Tokyo Conference, the international community pledged 4.5 billion dollars for 5 years. Later the US Congress authorized 3.3 billion dollars over 3 years in financial and military assistance. Now there are rumor this year that another 1 billion is promised for further expenditures such as the upcoming election and so forth. Now what did the UN say. The UN said the 4.5 billion that the international community pledged is not enough instead 10 billion is needed over 5 years. The Afghan government said Afghanistan needs an additional 20 billion dollars in aid over the next 5 years to what was pledged to become self-sustaining in 10 years. Like you said, there is no Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Germany before the war and after the war was in better economic condition than the current situation in Afghanistan. While the US government says, “Afghanistan remains a top priority” spending in Afghanistan amounts to only 1 percent of spending on Iraq. Of the received money by Afghanistan, 50 percent of it did not go to reconstruction but rather humanitarian relief. Furthermore, 60 percent of this amount went back into the pockets of the UN and western NGOs. One of the reasons for this is the international donors have high bookkeeping standards unlikely to be met by Afghan NGOs and Afghan government bureaucrats.

Dr. Fareed Younos: I was thinking about two issues. German was not only an industrialized democracy but was also a Christian nation. This meant that there was no contradiction to American culture. Wasn’t it easier to implement their policies in Germany than to create a “Marshall Plan” for Afghanistan and implement it like it was done in Germany? Isn’t there a cultural issue when an economic plan is sent to an Islamic country rather than to Germany?

Hekmat Sadat: Yes, there are many varying reasons. I have not delved into the issues in depth but first and foremost when your customers are poor you can not sell your products. Sometimes you have to give the customers some money so they can spend a week’s allowance on a BicMac. Secondly, at that time a lot of Germans were emigrating to the US and we know ethnic groups who are vocal or powerful in the government always control American foreign policy. German-Americans levied considerable amount of pressure on the government for an aid package. Thirdly, Germany is located in the center of Europe and at that time mostly all of the commerce was transported through oceans, seas, and rivers such as the Rhine and Danube of Germany. A reconstructed Germany meant that transportation within Europe would be easily facilitated. Fourthly, Germany was to serve as a shield of capitalism and democracy against communism and governments that closed their markets to the world and would not allow their people to buy a BicMac.

Dr. Fareed Younos: How do you survey Afghanistan’s relationship with respect to globalization?

Hekmat Sadat: Imagine globalization in the form of a disease or a cure for that disease. Now, the Afghan government, businessmen, and basically any Afghan or person interested in Afghanistan must answer some crucial questions: How can accelerated economic growth be devised for Afghanistan? There is lots of poverty in the country. Food resources are plentiful but not everyone has the buying power to attain those resources. At the beginning of the 21^st century, Afghanistan has pressing problems as it relates to public health such as the arrival of AIDS and refugee camps illnesses such as typhoid and cholera. This matter must be resolved because a labor force that is ill can not contribute to the economy. The questions that the government must ask itself are as follows: What is the extend Afghanistan should integrate itself into the global economy and with which countries? In the past, Afghanistan had completely bound itself with the USSR. Hence, when you look in hindsight, the Soviet invasion was an easy prediction given the nature of the relationship. To what extend should Afghanistan bind itself with countries that have or might have economic recessions? This is a serious issue because in a global economy recessions transpiring one country can get exported to another. How can the government encourage private investment in the country? That is how can it entice foreign investment? One of the problems that India had was similar to Afghanistan’s. India was historically very protectionist and never let foreigners into its market. However, in recent times their market barriers had been lowered. It allowed Pepsi-Cola to come and do business there. Pepsi, however, also got involved in local elections as it became a sham. The unpopular candidate won. The public protested and demanded Pepsi to leave the country. So, Pepsi-Cola was force to leave and in came Coca-Cola. These are the major problems for developing countries. Another aspect is how will financial institutions regain credibility and the fiduciary trust of the people? How can the government reverse the brain drain and capital flight phenomenon of the Afghan Diaspora? How can the government improve the education system, so people are not force abroad to get an education then be employed abroad?

Dr. Fareed Younos: Seeking forgiveness if I am wrong but in Afghanistan everyone is interested in becoming a minister, deputy minister, or ambassador. Even those that had a doctoral degree too because these positions have great perks such as a personal driver, comfortable residence, and travel. I wrote a formal proposal and sent it to the UN saying that all of the professors must have a very high salary so that they are drawn to the university as instructors, researchers, and to build up the nation academic cadre. There are not a lot of people interested in becoming teachers because of the circumstances. The education sector should be made lucrative so that people join it. What do you say to this situation?

Hekmat Sadat: Well, all the positions you started contribute to the nation. A minister in the current government of Afghanistan earns about 40 dollars a month and a taxi cab driver in Kabul earns about 150 dollars a month. If I were in Afghanistan considering the tremendous amount of social, linguistic, and political pressure ministers face, I would perhaps opt to drive a taxi and rid myself of these pressures and have a higher income.

Dr. Fareed Younos: What is your opinion regarding the relationship of political stability to reconstruction? Does reconstruction bring political stability? Or political stability foster reconstruction efforts?

Hekmat Sadat: The relationship of reconstruction to security is analogous to the dilemma of the chicken-egg debate over which comes first. Now, it is correct from one perspective we can say that security must exist so that people can engage in investment and join the labor force. The other perspective decrees that if we are able to create a reconstruction model of success, then people will realize the opportunity cost lost if not engaging in reconstruction efforts. As a result, those resistant or deterring security measures will realize the personal gains and lay down their arms. In the various newsprints, I have read regarding Afghanistan especially in the peripheral among the gunlords that when they come to the capital to obtain their salary, the ministry of finance replies that they have not disarmed and turned over their weapons to the government so they are not eligible for a salary. The gunlords in reply told the government what guarantee do we have that once we turn over our weapons that America will not leave and then you flee to your host country while we will be stuck again fighting a proxy war. Afghans don't suffer from historical amnesia and especially when they experienced painful wars and sufferings. Therefore, the question you raised doesn’t have a black and white answer. I think it is important that security and reconstruction need to happen simultaneously. Looking at this dilemma through the globalization factor will enhance our perspectives. Afghanistan today has a common border with seven countries. Of these six countries, three have the capabilities of a nuclear bomb making them very powerful political forces.

Dr. Fareed Younos: China, Pakistan and Iran?

Hekmat Sadat: It is very possible that Iran has this technology right now according to recent reports. Now, Afghanistan is surrounded by some really strong neighbors. In addition related to globalization, countries registered to NATO have come to Afghanistan. Perhaps they have not come to destroy Afghanistan but under the pretense to help. Therefore, since each of these countries have their own agendas, we must study the policies of each of them to understand their role in Afghanistan. For example, Peter Tomsen wrote in the Los Angeles Times on July 13, 2003 basically insinuating that the Pentagon and CIA still give money to the armies of the gunlords bolstering them. The State Department wants to support the civil government. The USAID is dishing out funds to the NGOs, mostly non-Afghan NGOs. Now we need to look at the problem in Afghanistan as related to the problem in America where the government itself is in disagreement. Therefore, when a soldier or private militia man wants to disarm himself and enlist in reconstruction project he can not because the country that is supplying the aid is itself in disarray. Or in the case of Germany: although there have been great Afghan-German relationships, Germany is trickling in the aid and their own people are building the projects.

Dr. Fareed Younos: Mr. Sadat, we are winding down the program so if you would please give us your last thoughts.

Hekmat Sadat: I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to discuss globalization and Afghanistan. Looking forward to further discussions. Lastly, it is important that we remind the world not to forget Afghanistan again.