Foreign investment in Pakistan during the same period last year was $2.21 billion in the same period last year and the current account deficit was $8.982 billion.

Analysts point out that higher current transfers and receipt of logistical support payments from the US contribute to lowering deficit. The US embassy said this month it had released $656 million to Pakistan from its so-called coalition support fund for costs incurred last year in fighting Islamist militants, with $188 million transfered in late April 30 and $468 million in May.

The $188 million is reflected in the current account data for April and analysts said the remaining $468 million will be reflected in May’s data which should show a further narrowing of the deficit.

The trade deficit for the July to April period of the 2009/10 (July-June) fiscal year was $12.24 billion, compared with $14.22 billion in the same period last year.

Analysts said they expected the current account deficit to keep narrowing on falling international oil prices.

“We see a similar trend continuing in coming months with the recent decline in international oil prices further helping lessen pressure on the BOP (balance of payments),” Qureshi said.

Oil fell below $70 a barrel on Monday, its lowest in more than three months, extending a loss of nearly 17 percent over the past two weeks on fears over Europe’s debts, the weak euro and swollen US oil inventories.

Pakistan recorded a provisional current account deficit of $185 million in April compared with a provisional $40 million in March.

In a quarterly report on the economy released in March, the central bank lowered its forecast for the 2009/10 current account deficit to 3.2-3.8 percent of gross domestic product, from previous estimates of 3.7-4.7 percent.

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) emergency loan package of $7.6 billion agreed in November 2008 helped avert a balance of payments crisis and shore up reserves.

The IMF increased the loan to $11.3 billion in July and approved the fifth tranche of $1.13 billion on May 14.

But foreign investment in Pakistan continues to face decline. Out of total foreign investment, foreign direct investment fell 44.7 percent to $1.77 billion in the July to April period, from $3.20 billion in the year-ago period, the State Bank said.

Worsening security situation, with a Taliban insurgency in the country’s northwest, coupled with chronic power shortages, have kept risk averse investors out of the country .

There was a net outflow of $46.6 million of foreign portfolio investment in the first 10 months of this (July-June) fiscal year, compared with a net outflow of $992.6 million in the same period last year.

Authorities imposed a floor on the Karachi Stock Exchange benchmark index in August 2008 as political uncertainity and economic and security worries drained investor confidence.

The floor discouraged new investment and also led to a sharp outflow of funds, as foreign investors sold holdings in off-market trade.

Hussain Haqqani (USA), Wajid Shamsul Hassan (UK) and, Shahid Malik (India) are the few ambassadors that Pakistani media finds relevant, relegating all others to secondary and tertiary positions.

Every country has their list of top 10, top 25, top 50, and “rest of the world” often referred to in international parlance as “ROW” but Pakistan’s foreign policy lacks depth and width.

At the United Nations in New York, a venue that provides effective medium to socialize ideas of national interest, Pakistan has no traction in South-South diplomacy. And, the reason is rather simple; our foreign policy is so focused on the US, and India that Pakistani diplomats at the UN have no clear directives from Islamabad.

One can argue that maintaining friendship with the US and keeping an eye on the threat from India consumes so much energy and resources that we are unable to adequately interact with rest of the world. But, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that diversity in ‘diplomatic contacts’ will yield multi-faceted benefits for our country.

Unlike our engagements with the US, diplomacy with fellow developing countries are premised on the principle of voluntary partnerships – free from conditionality’s typical of neo-colonial interactions.

Would it benefit Pakistan to build a relationship of trust with Venezuela? Caracas can play strategic role in improving Pakistan’s position among developing nations – and provide Pakistani entrepreneur another destination to export. Google “Pakistan ambassador to Venezuela” and you will be disappointed with the result.

The cynics among us will proclaim: we can’t afford to build stronger ties with Venezuela without ruffling feathers in Washington and that is why we don’t do much with Caracas. But Chile is a trusted American ally.

And we have established a mission in Chile – a state that shares several similarities with Pakistan. Chile is often described as an American proxy state, had been under military rule for a major part of it’s post colonial history, and a country where a powerful intelligence agency had become the state within state. Sounds familiar?

Pakistani Ambassador to Chile Burhanul Islam seems to be gaining some ground with local political and business elite. Ambassador Islam says that Pakistan opened Embassy in Chile to establish multidimensional cooperation with particular focus on politics, economy, commerce, culture, defense and education. But these areas of focus were overshadowed when a Pakistani man with alleged terror ties was briefly held in Santiago. It was the first time you may have heard of Ambassador Islam or that we have a presence in Chile.

Why was Saif-ur-Rehman held – only time will tell but we know the evidence against him are so flimsy that the local judge finds it impossible to hold him behind bars.

It is easy to digress in conspiracy theory: Pakistan had started to make progress with Chilean elite and Americans felt it had to be contained. Or the American version of conspiracy theory: Pakistanis have established Chancery in Santiago to facilitate terror activities and export fanaticism to America via South America. Neither of these assumptions can be verified. And, let’s leave it at that.

Saif-Ur-Rehman’s arrest was not the only story about Chile-Pakistan relations lately: The provincial government of Balochistan has decided to terminate a multi-billion-dollar agreement with a Canadian-Chilean joint venture company to develop a copper and gold mine at Reko Dik. (This is a separate story which I plan to follow shortly).

In Brazil, an emerging power that should be our top priority, we have an embassy but no ambassador. First Secretary Ali Haider Altaf holds fort at the capital. Financial and cultural hubs of Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro are represented by honorary personal.

Google “Brazil” and look this country’s key performance indicators and tell me if you would want your top guy or gal to represent you in this rapidly emerging power. I bet you would. But, those who formulate our foreign policy in Islamabad don’t think so.

Take for example, Colombia – another important nation that we can easily call our friend – and we are represented by a Honorary Investment Counselor in it’s capital Bogota.

Going back to the pop quiz above – we do have embassies in Malaysia and Russia but chances are you have not heard names of these ambassadors. And, that is because these missions receive no visibility in Pakistani media – and old proverb “out of sight out of mind” is apropos.

Over the past 30 years, there has been an upsurge in South-South cooperation – ties that go far beyond trade and investments: education, science, agriculture, medicine, health services and information technologies.

I believe that this decade has been a truly transformational one in the South-South relationship. Many milestones have been met. Interactions between developing nations have yielded rich dividends in terms of cooperation between countries in many areas, underscoring the vitality and the relevance of strategic partnership.

The transformation in South-South relationship have taken place against the backdrop of developing nations’ initiatives to reform their economy and the geopolitical changes in the post-Cold War world.

To my mind, there are three main drivers that have led to this transformation.

First are shared values of democracy, pluralism, and tolerance and respect for fundamental freedom, which provides the underpinning of a durable relationship.

Second, there is the reality of growing economic linkages and people-to- people contact. Over the last two decades, businesses have formed strong and mutually beneficial partnerships; cooperation touching the lives of ordinary people about the power to connect and reaching out to the common denominator.

And, third, there is an increasing convergence of interests on major global issues. The imperatives of a multi-polar and interconnected world today set the stage for developing nations to work together to address global challenges whether it be the rising threat of terrorism and extremism or ensuring a balanced, equitable, and sustainable development for all — energy security and food security for the world at large.

Diplomacy plays a critical role in statecraft and foreign policy and Pakistan needs to start making it a priority. If you attend international ceremonies and festivities in Islamabad or Washington DC, you will often find that diplomats are called “bridge” between nations. There is more to that: diplomatic representatives abroad are the eyes, ears, and the mouth of the foreign office back home. If foreign policy is devised appropriately, diplomatic representatives in the field can fulfill their symbolic, legal and political roles. But effective execution by the foot soldiers is only possible when the visionaries at the head office are doing their job well.

Islamabad appears to be so focused on maintaining friendship with Washington and keeping an eye on Delhi that it has no time for rest of the world.

The historic signing of the unanimously passed 18th Amendment into an act of parliament by President Asif Ali Zardari has been rightly described as the finest hour in Pakistan’s history. A nation that has had a roller-coaster existence ever since the first extra-constitutional intervention by the Praetorian-civil bureaucratic establishment unscrupulously sanctified by the apex judiciary in 1953, that plunged Mr Jinnah’s dream of a democratic Pakistan into an unending obscurantist nightmare–has never had it so good as now.

Zardari made history on April 19th. He had promised to the Pakistani nation in his first speech as the elected President that he would be the one who would restore the supremacy of the Parliament in deference to the vision of martyred Benazir Bhutto. By abdicating his absolute powers Zardari has kept his pledge. He has gifted the nation with the priceless dividend of the supremacy of parliamentary democracy. Satisfaction was writ large on the faces of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and a galaxy of cross-party top political leadership of the country that attended the historic singing of the 18th Amendment Bill into an act of parliament to make it inseparable part of the 1973 Constitution.

It was also a moment of triumph for Senator Mian Raza Rabbani, chairman of the Constitutional Reforms Committee and his colleagues who had burnt midnight oil for months to perform a ‘consensus-based constitutional miracle,’ much to the disappointment of the doomsayers. Both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who fathered the 1973 Constitution and his daughter Benazir Bhutto, who gave her life to seek its restoration in its original glory, must be happy in heaven over the historic feat.

It speaks in volumes of the evolution of political development in Pakistan through blood, toil and tears of hundreds and thousands of people who braved the most atrocious dictators anointed as legitimate by the successive chief justices and pliable members of superior judiciary, more interested in their pound of flesh rather than abide by the oath they undertook to defend the constitution.

The 19th of April made every Pakistani proud when not only President Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif were at the Presidency, but also heads of all the political parties that participated in the 18th amendment deliberations, including ANP leader Asfandyar Wali, Fazlur Rehman of the JUI, Dr Farooq Sattar of the MQM and other members of parliament.

In my view, the democracy was at its supreme that day and every one of us rightly felt proud to be Pakistanis. However, one is flabbergasted at the attitude of some of the so-called constitutional experts, who seem hell-bent in subverting the grand national consensus by opposing it. These experts have assumed the role of summer soldiers and sunshine patriots working for a judicial coup.

While the majority of country’s top constitutional lawyers and jurists such as Ch. Eitezaz Ahsan, Asma Jehangir, Justice (R) Tariq Mahmud and legal community’s supremo who lead the movement for the restoration of the Chief Justice– Ali Ahmed Kurd– have welcomed the restoration of 1973 Constitution in its full glory and much more, an intriguing move to subvert it has surfaced to the dismay of the nation. It is spearheaded by Hafeez Pirzada who is piggish and unhappy over four of the constitutional amendments – (a) powers of the prime minister and party leaders, (b) provincial autonomy and the abolition of the Concurrent List, (c) human rights violation due to accumulation of powers in a single person (party leader), and (d) appointment of the judiciary.

Mr Pirzada’s major objection concerns a party leader’s powers to recall the Prime Minister being elected by the people. Mr Pirzada must be aware of the fact that as in the 1973 constitution, the 18th Amendment was the result of party politics and each participating party kept its party position in view while deliberating these amendments.

Political parties represent country’s political institutions. Therefore, it is superfluous to demonise the political parties or their heads by undermining the Prime Minister who represents a political party for having re-acquired the powers that belonged to that office in the original 1973 constitution.

Whether it is the developing or the developed world, parliamentary democracy revolves around political parties. Congress leader Sonia Gandhi is a party leader and derives her strength from the party as its president. Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher did not loose the vote of confidence in the parliament, but their party made them to resign as Prime Ministers. There are no two views that in a parliamentary democracy it is the party which remains supreme not the offices of the president or prime ministers.

Human rights of the people have not been violated (which is the third objection of Mr Pirzada) by making the party leader strong, who, in any case remains strong by virtue of his party’s position in the assembly.

As regards Mr Pirzada’s objection to concurrent list and the provincial autonomy, he is reminded of the days when he used to demand more provincial autonomy along with Mr Mumtaz Bhutto, when the duo discovered quantum of provincial autonomy insufficient and sought a confederal system rather than federal.

From being a champion of confederation to strong centre, Mr Pirzada has forgotten the fact that the abolition of the concurrent list represents the collective will of the people of the country, which should serve to lessen the differences between the provinces.

Ironically, some novices in the media and politics including a group of lawyers are whining over hereditary politics. In a country still suffering from mass illiteracy, feudalism, nepotism and frequent visitations of martial laws, how they can expect British or American type of democracy without fulfilling the conditions prevailing in those societies.

India, with uninterrupted civilian rule has not come out of the “Nehru dynasty”. But before passing a judgment, it needs to be determined whether these “dynasties” have done good or bad for the country. The detractors of “Bhutto dynasty” will have to first match their charisma amongst the people and their sacrifices for the country. The Bhutto legacy continues to rule the hearts and minds of the toiling masses from their graves while those who betrayed the Bhuttos–likes of Pirzadas–have no doubt survived but only as monumental pygmies likely to be remembered in the footnotes of history.

The writer is current High Commissioner of Pakistan to UK and former advisor to late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

The series of dialogues starting March 24 will be the fourth round of discussions between the two countries since 2006 and the first that will include direct involvement of top-ranking government officials from both sides.

Delegation that arrived today includes Fireign Minister Qureshi, Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, ISI Chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha and Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar.

From the United States, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense, Roberts Gates will attend strategic dialogues. Other key members of the US delegation will include leaders from the trade, agricultural and economic sectors. The US is going all out to demonstrate the seriousness and respect with which it views Pakistan.

Special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke last week said that this round of talks marks a “major intensification” to build and sustain a positive US-Pakistan relationship. He added that the March 24 proceedings will address various topics of enhanced cooperation between Pakistan and the US.

Holbrooke further said, “The United States is supporting Pakistan as it seeks to strengthen democratic institutions, as it seeks to foster more economic development, expand opportunities, deal with its energy and water problems and defeat the extremist groups who threaten both Pakistan’s security and stability in the larger region and American national security as well.”

Before leaving for Pakistan last week, Foreign Minister Qureshi that he will be proposing a “10 tracks of engagements,” to ehance cooperation between two countries.

The tracks will include issues in the areas of education, economy, energy, technology and more. Pakistani officials are fully expected to request the latest information concerning the aid that has been promised from the US. The United States Congress recently approved a $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan to be delivered over the next 5 years.

Pakistani leaders are also expected to make an obvious push for acceptance of the development of their nuclear program. And of course, counterterrorism issues are also very near the top of the talks agenda. Pakistan and the US remain strong allies in the ongoing attempts to crush out both Taliban-based insurgency in Afghanistan and the constant battles against Al-Qaeda.

International attention is being placed on the fact that Pakistan has recently stepped up its efforts to root out terrorist factions within its own borders. The aggressive pursuit of militants, arresting Afghan Taliban members and even apprehending top Taliban commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and more are actions that all are being praised.

Holbrooke last week said Obama administration was, “extremely gratified that the Pakistani government has apprehended the No. 2 person in the Taliban. And he is where he belongs. And many other people have been picked up or eliminated and this is putting much more pressure on the Taliban. And this is a good thing for the simplest of reasons: It is good for the military efforts that are under way in Afghanistan.”

nI addition to the promised $7.5 billion in aid promised, the US has also recently provided Pakistan with 1000 kits for manufacturing laser-accurate explosive projectile weapons. These are designed to give Pakistani Air Force the upper hand in battles against insurgency. Further, the US has also pledged its strong support for continued economic and political reform within Pakistan.

According to CNN, Secretary Clinton has recently stated concerns about the possibility of Pakistan falling under control of terrorist organizations. She blames inefficient governmental strategies and policies that are simply ineffective. Clinton urged Pakistani citizens to voice their opinions and concerns via any mediums they can.

Secretary Clinton said during a scheduled appearance the past Wednesday in front of the House of Foreign Affairs Committee , “I think that we cannot underscore the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, a nuclear-armed state.” She continued, “I don’t hear that kind of outrage and concern coming from enough people that would reverberate back within the highest echelons of the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan.”

The March 24 round of US-Pakistan strategy talks promises to step up the cooperation levels from both countries’ leadership in order to more effectively create a sustainable, mutually-profitable future. Representative of the ever-increasing dedication to thwart and abolish terrorism planetwide, the US-Pakistani dialogue will form an important element of world development.

In a departure from its earlier stand, the US is ready to discuss Pakistan’s request for nuclear power plants, a media report said on Sunday.

“We are beginning to have a discussion with the Pakistan government” on the country’s desire to tap nuclear energy, US envoy in Islamabad Ambassador Anne W Patterson was quoted as saying in a Los Angeles-based Pakistani newspaper.

She told the Pakistan Link newspaper that earlier America’s “non-proliferation concerns were quite severe” but attitudes in Washington were changing. “I think we are beginning to pass those and this is a scenario we are going to explore,” she added.

Analysts in New York feel that TCP’s tender process was not ‘above board,’ and they lost an opportunity to import at much better price than local producers can offer.

TCP had received the lowest bid to import 200,000 metric tons of refined sugar at approximately $125 below per ton from an American company. All together TCP had received seven bids for its 200,000 tons of sugar import tender with lowest at $579.90 per ton and the highest at $826 per ton C&F.

TCP officials told us that the lowest offer of $579.90 per ton was from the American Investment Group. This bid is $125 below current market price. Star International had the second lowest bid at $749 per ton for 50,000 ton.

But both, AIG and Start failed to secure bank guarantee. Pakistan requires a total 1.2 million tons to bridge a gap in supplies that has pushed prices to near a record. It plans to import 500,000 tons by June and another 700,000 tons by July.

Earlier, a Dubai based trading firm – Sadan General Trading had won a partial award and has already submitted a bond for $350,000 with the TCP.

Current world sugar range from $706 to $709 per ton Fob, but it is possible that American Investment Group is trying to unload inventory.

Pakistani experts were concerned about low bids from AIG. Chief of TCP was quoted by Dawn saying that AIG must be trying off-load old inventory.

But sugar executives in the US claim that the vast majority of sugar marketed here is sold well below the spot prices commonly reported in the media. They feel that AIG prices offered to TCP were reflective of street price of refined sugar.

Inder Mathur, the CEO of Western Sugar Cooperative says companies in the US sell sugar for an estimated 25-30 percent cheaper than what the USDA reports as average prices.

Most food manufacturers booked this year’s sugar purchases months in advance at lower levels, and few ever pay the asking price, he noted. The same situation occurs in sugarcane-producing regions, too.

Jim Simon, the general manager for the American Sugar Cane League, which represents the Louisiana sugar industry, says producers expect to sell this year’s raw sugar crop for between 23.5 cents and 24 cents per pound.

“This is an improvement from the 20.5 cents seen in previous years, but is certainly not a windfall,” he explained. The publically reported raw price was close to 40 cents per pound last month, and the average price for 2009 was under 25 cents.

The price of sugar, which had been stagnant for more than two decades, has recovered over the past year.

“Prices are still below levels seen in 1985 when they are corrected for inflation,” Mathur told Forum attendees. “And world prices have risen twice as much as domestic.” Sugar shortages around the globe have led to steep price increases worldwide.

He also noted that 23 years of flat prices in America combined with higher input costs have led to contraction and consolidation within the U.S. industry. In fact, 54 sugar mills and refineries have closed since 1985, according to the American Sugar Alliance.

“If the recent price recovery can be sustained,” Mathur concluded, “producers might be able to improve returns over past years, reduce their debt load, re-invest, continue to improve efficiency, and stay in business.”

But despite falling prices in the US market, countries like Pakistan are facing severe sugar crisis. Many blame local producers for the unreasonable hike in sugar prices.

Judge Richard Berman, by ordering additional security measures for this trial, underscored the ideological profiling of a religious minority that has suffered immense public devaluation and disparagement since the 9/11 attacks.

I must admit that I do not completely understand the complex and diverse reasons for the foregrounding of religion in identities of Muslims in America. But I feel that the post 9/11 policies of the US government, fear mongering by conservative media, have led to increased in-group solidarity and identification on the basis of religion.

I have always argued that identify is fluid and contextual. I am a Pakistani when someone in New York asks me ‘where are your from?’ When the same question is posed in Lahore, I am from Karachi. I am a ‘man’ when around women- I am a ‘straight man’ around gays and an ‘old man’ around young kids.

But here is the sticky point – whether I practice religion or not, I am a Muslim because of my name, place of origin, and possibly because of clothes that I wear.

Faced with ideological profiling, discrimination, devaluation,and disparagement, religious identity has become the key marker for young Muslim men and women. I met several young Pakistani women who were born and raised in New York who not only cover their faces in hijab completely but also do not show picture IDs to male security guards.

I asked a young woman behind veil where she was from – she said “Brooklyn.” No, she didn’t say Pakistan. She was born in Coney Island Hospital to parents from Pakistan. Her father who used to be a lecturer in Pakistan has driven a cab for the past twenty years on the streets of New York. She has lived on the intersection of Coney Island Avenue and Newkirk Avenue all her life. From Kindergarten to college – she attended the public education system.

Let me not exaggerate- even among Muslims in America she is an anomaly. The majority of Muslim women dress modestly, some wear scarves, and plenty dress in ways that are consistent with their American peers.

But my sweet little Pakistani-Americans with faces covered in hijab are growing in numbers. I completely respect their right to cover themselves – and also understand the anxieties of those who fear what maybe behind the veil.

I can see how religious discourse can play a vital role in negotiating and resisting parental and community restrictions. A family friend recently told me that she knows several young Pakistani girls who cover themselves so they don’t have to worry about what clothes they must wear to school – or whether they have a boy friend or not. “It simply relieves them of all sorts of peer pressure,” our friend said. And, yes it is plausible.

But I feel it is more than not having brand name jeans with matching socks and bra-straps that force these bright and immensely intelligent women to wear hijab. For many it is a sign of dissent- a sign of courage- a sign of protest and yes of course for many it is their religious duty. These young women use the discourse of religion and identity for personal empowerment.

And, of course there were some young Muslim men at the trial with beards flying all over their faces and prayer beads in hand. There was one who had a ‘miswak’ (a piece of dried stem used 1400 years ago to brush teeth). The Marshal who had searched his bag was puzzled to see this ‘miswak’ and asked what do you do with it?

And, yes this young man was born in Queens. He has lived in New York – studied in several American schools and colleges. Like thousands of other young Muslim American, he also feels his religious identity provides a positive role model, compared to his parents’ under-employment and as an alternative to the street and drug cultures in his neighborhoods.

Parents of these young men and women are ecstatic that their off-spring are following religious and cultural values and are “keeping away from danger”. But the search for identity makes these impressionable young men and women vulnerable to radicalization as well.

The search for identity is part of the process of defining one’s relationship with the world that usually takes place without necessarily leading to ‘radicalization’. One would argue that ‘radicalization’ requires an interpersonal interaction with other actors who stimulate and influence the process. And, this is where the rub lies. Devaluation, disparagement and ideological profiling, lack of equal opportunities for career advancement and integration with mainstream society are those factors that can stimulate and influence the process of radicalization.

By ordering additional security for Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s trial Judge Richard Berman inadvertently became that external actor.

Let’s face it – Muslims today are facing a crisis that has few parallels in history. They are caught between the forces of extremism from within and the crushing onslaught of the West. Many Muslims find previous explanations of injustices (rich and poor) class based economic systems inadequate to explain their current experience. For Muslims living in the US this experience is compounded by religious discrimination, ideological profiling, and a lack of confidence in the government.

These young men and women I met during the trial simply seek to construct a sense of what it means to be Muslim in the US today. However, they are in danger of radicalization because traditional Islamic institutions are failing to connect with them to address their challenges. Many young men and women who grew up on the streets of New York and have found Islam empowering are not in a position
to objectively evaluate whether extremist interpretations represent an accurate understanding of Islam.

I found a young Pakistani-American who was born in Harlem Hospital and grew up in Bronx recently argue that Islam abolished slavery and that is why there are more blacks embracing Islam than whites. And, there was a young Pakistani girl who argued Islam emancipated women because before the advent of Islam girls were buried as soon as they were born. She got agitated when I suggested that it was1400 years ago and asked what progress has been made to further emancipate women. “Quran is final,” she said and no progress, changes can be expected in the lives of pious Muslim men and women.

I can’t blame Judge Richard Berman for a less than rational worldview of these young men and women. But more ideological profiling will create more disenfranchised, alienated, marginalized and angry individuals.

But, those of us who cherish the secular tradition of the US have a responsibility. We need to define what Islam means to our children born and raised in this society. We must define what it means to practice religion in a secular country. We must open doors for young men and women to integrate religion with local traditions. We must encourage them to allow American influences into their lives and ideology. We must encourage them to fully participate in the society and political system. We must encourage public service.

Simply put- it is our responsibility and only we can defeat Islamic extremism; not soldiers with M4 rifles, not pilotless drones and robots. And, we can do that by accepting and acknowledging the ground realities- we should be able to explain that context will not erode the core of Islam. That Islam will potentially benefit from some localization.