Is immigration disruptive? The answer all depends on your individual perspective. From my view, you cannot argue for free trade and then put up controls on people who want to immigrate. You cannot use a lack of integration as an excuse to discriminate against immigrants; after all, most colonizers did not integrate into the countries they colonized. Societies prosper when they open their doors, and despite how much the Americans, the British or the French complain about non-Caucasian minorities, they also need to see how much immigrant doctors, engineers and professionals have contributed to their society. Every American who is not a Native American is an immigrant, and one should never forget that no land belongs to anybody in the true historical sense.

This is an interesting question given the recent riots in France, protests in Malaysia by Malaysians of Indian origin, and with human migration generally becoming a more critical subject. Immigration has always been an integral part of the human saga of development, and under various names the phenomenon of people seeking new opportunities in new lands has always been there: in America, in Australia, and so on. In the modern world it has become more of an issue and more 'disruptive,' as nationalist sentiments make one question the rationale of allowing 'other people' into a society. In a number of former colonizing societies – Great Britain, France, The Netherlands – the 'import' of cheaper labor in the post-colonial era resulted in large migrations of people, particularly in England. With higher birth rates and the tendency of such immigrants not to assimilate, one can are England is now facing 'reverse colonialism'; who would have though 50 years ago two members of the House of Lords will be Asian descent.

In the overall scheme of human settlement, the disruptive element of immigration has been nominal. While riots may seem to suggest a catastrophe waiting to happen, the reality is less troublesome. In France it is the French youth who are being hooligans; they happen to be of African or Moroccan descent, but make no mistake: they are born and bred Frenchmen. Immigration is not the issue - our attitude towards people is.

The fact that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program completely erodes the basis of President Bush's stance on Iran and the region. However, there is no accountability as was seen by the WMD assertions in the case of Iraq, where after four years of occupation not a single piece of evidence has emerged that Saddam Hussein had WMD. While Iran has not been entirely open about things and acted more suspiciously than it needed to, the reality is that with oil prices soaring, nuclear energy will be needed for power plants and the world should get used to more countries seeking nuclear power plants.

I believe no country should be denied nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and a regime and standards for inspection should be decided immediately. In addition, countries with nuclear weapons, in the region and its hinterlands – including Israel – should come clean on their controls for preventing proliferation. The U.S. must also back off this aggressive talk about imposing its will on the region, and should encourage countries to seek normalization with Iran. Whenever there is a public crisis between Tehran and Washington, it is the radical elements within Iran that become stronger and more visible. If Iran has to be changed from within, then it is important to reduce those tensions.

One of the major concerns for proliferation can be resolved if a nuclear power utility company is set up in the region and this company is then contracted for power through off-take agreements, allowing the IAEA to be impose its inspections and controls on the company. So long as countries have control of their own nuclear energy programs, there will always be suspicion about what is really going on.

**Editor's Note: This piece was written in response to a question asking panelists to choose the best of six proposals on how to move forward on climate change. Read More Panelist Views**

The Kyoto Protocol and the recent Bali Summit clearly show that a global approach is fraught with political agendas, principally on the part of the United States, that make an effective climate control agreement the product of compromises. Unless the United States, Japan and India join in a concerted bid to agree to emission targets, any agreement will be a show of political intent rather than a commitment to action. Thus the idea of creating climate clubs becomes all the more feasible as it will allow nations who wish to act on climate change to proceed forward, hopefully creating a framework of progress, that will then become the basis of political and social pressure on countries who do not follow the path towards climate change.

Continue »

The Question: The producers of the movie "The Kite Runner" had to evacuate three boy actors from Afghanistan because they were involved in a scene portraying homosexual rape. Who's at fault here: the movie producers who exposed the boys to danger, or the Afghan culture that threatens them?

I am a Pathan from the tribal areas of Pakistan, so perhaps this question poses difficult issues. From a modern perspective there is no doubt that the lack of tolerance, especially on artistic expressions, has been a matter of concern for people like me. I question whether the Afghans who have threatened the actors are suggesting that homosexuality doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or whether they are suggesting that exposing its existence is a crime. The reality is that homosexuality has been prevalent in Afghan culture for centuries, and proliferated especially during the Taliban years when contact between women and men was very difficult. In The Kite Runner, the homosexual rape is the contentious issue especially because a Taliban official commits it. The portrayal highlights the fact that often in Afghan society during times of war, captured enemy men were sodomized. As British officers from the Afghan wars would say: ‘Better to put a bullet through your own head then be taken prisoner.’

Continue »

The Question: Is Christmas a bigger event in your country than it was ten years ago? Is this a sign of Westernization or just commercialization?

Indeed Christmas has become a huge event in the United Arab Emirates, and especially in Dubai. However, I am not sure that it is due to either Westernization or commercialization. My own take is that it’s more a result of the diverse population that has emerged in UAE. Today there are over 140 nationalities living here, with all the major religions represented. Some, like Christians, have places of worship, on land gifted by the Ruler of Dubai. Indeed other than Muslims, Christians represent the largest religion here – there are at least four major churches in town. It is interesting that ten years ago a shopping mall would not be decorated for Christmas, but nowadays there is a distinct festive decoration in most of the major malls. This is where the commercial side has stepped in, and stores like Harvey Nichols and others have Christmas specials all over the store.

Continue »

The Question: After Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday, what's next for Pakistan?

Benazir Bhutto's assassination is not only a terrible loss to the political process and the nation of Pakistan - it also shows how fragile the country is to the acts of militants. Her tragic death must be viewed in the context of Pakistan's political and security situation: this is clearly a sign of worse things to come.

First and foremost, it is highly unlikely that the elections will be held as scheduled on January 8, 2008. That might the rallying point for both Benazir's Peoples Party (under the leadership of Amin Fahim) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League to seek sweeping changes and a return to the rule of law. This is a huge blow to the U.S., as it backed her and General Musharraf and now will be hard-pressed to handle the political process in Pakistan.

Clearly Benazir Bhutto's killing shows the telltale signs of an al-Qaeda style attack. It sends two messages: one to the Pakistani politicians that they should soften their tone against terrorism, and another to the Americans that their political support will be hacked down from the top. This is a huge embarrassment for General Musharraf, because all his claims of victory against terrorism have come to naught. If nothing else, now that he is out of uniform one cannot rule out the Army seeking to remove him, either through constitutional means or otherwise.

There are already reports of violence in the interior of Sindh, where Benazir was very popular, and it would seem that the situation may get out of hand: people will take to the streets, blaming Musharraf for the failure to ensure security in the country. On balance, I would predict that with elections postponed it is highly possible that conspiracy theories will emerge that will weaken President Musharraf and amplify calls for his removal. In the light of civil strife, it would seem that a major change is more likely than ever.

I knew Benazir personally, and the few times we met and discussed politics, although we may have disagreed on issues, I never had a doubt that she was one of the most astute political figures in the country. Her opponent Nawaz Sharif now carries the responsibility of bringing reason into the country and may even suggest a joint government for national reconstruction.

The Question: What was the biggest news story in your country last year [in 2007], and why?

There’s no doubt that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, in the twilight of the year, has become Pakistan’s biggest story of 2007. It would take a huge story indeed to overshadow the Gaza situation, the Iraqi insurgency, the U.S.-Iran nuclear standoff and Sheikh Mohammed of Dubai’s bold $1 billion fund to educate children. Each is a huge news story in its own right. Yet the death of a woman like Benazir Bhutto raises enormous questions as to the future course of Pakistan, and indeed the region.

Continue »