Business Recorder editorial June 29, 2016

ECP references The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has followed in the footsteps of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) in filing a reference before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, daughter of the PM Maryam Sharif’s MNA husband Mohammad Safdar, and Shahbaz Sharif’s son MNA Hamza Shahbaz. The reference seeks their disqualification on the basis of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. However, the ECP has given both the PTI and PPP references short shrift in rejecting them as the ECP cannot entertain them in the light of the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 as well as sections 52-56 of the Representation of People Act 1976. Article 63(2), the ECP quotes, lays down that disqualification of elected parliamentarians has to follow the procedure of first approaching the Speaker of the National Assembly or Chairman of the Senate, as the case may be, to ascertain within 30 days of any such reference being moved whether prima facie a case exists for referring the matter to the ECP. In the event that the Speaker or Chairman fails to do so within the 30-day stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been referred to the ECP. Upon receipt of such a reference, according to Article 63(3), the ECP is obliged to decide the question within 90 days, and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat will fall vacant. Further, according to section 52(2) of the Representation of People Act 1976, a contesting candidate alone can file a disqualification reference and that too within 45 days of the election. Even a contesting candidate’s reference cannot be entertained after the 45-day deadline. The question then arises, given that there are so many legal luminaries in the ranks of both the PTI and PPP, why have they chosen to ignore these clear provisions of the Constitution and law? The question strengthens the suspicion that this is mere political posturing, point scoring, and an attempt to keep the government under pressure and on the back foot. Why have these two leading opposition parties, whose weight in the opposition ranks negotiating the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the proposed commission on the Panama leaks affair is critical, chosen this seemingly fruitless path of first approaching the ECP for disqualification of the PM and some members of his family? First and foremost, several rounds of meetings between the two sides to come to consensus ToRs proved infructuous. The gulf between the opposition’s insistence that the commission first investigate the PM and his family’s offshore companies, properties and wealth, and the government’s desire to broaden the investigation to include all offshore companies/wealth owners, was the rock on which the negotiations foundered. Creeping exasperation, first in the PTI, later in the PPP, with what were perceived as the government’s dilatory, time-buying tactics and demands, soon put paid to any chance of consensus ToRs. Now there reports that since both these major opposition arties have withdrawn from the negotiations, the government may be contemplating framing those ToRs by a majority with the help of some smaller parties. Whether this is feasible only time will tell, but even if it transpires, it is obvious that without the PTI and PPP on board, any commission formed in this manner will be stillborn, even if it goes through the motions of investigation. The government has assessed the opposition’s tactics after withdrawal from the negotiations as opting for the ‘legal’ route rather than street agitation, which was being touted at one high point of frustration. Reports say the government is happy at this turn of events, presumably because it fits neatly within its strategy of procrastination and time-buying on the Panama affair. While the ECP-rejected references still have the house chair option, the superior courts too may be approached. The wisdom of an on the surface abortive approach to the ECP may be difficult to comprehend, except as part of the opposition’s strategy of keeping the government under pressure, but the unanswered question remains, to what end? The PTI is no respecter of our democratic system and may even be prepared to go outside the constitutional framework if advantage beckons, but the PPP has consistently stood for the system, including during Imran Khan’s long sit-in. Where all this is headed is still unclear, but the portents of polarisation and confrontation seem worryingly close.

Business Recorder editorial June 28, 2016

Foreign policy conundrum Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz’s briefing to journalists on Monday exuded (between the lines of course) an air of gloom and paralysis as far as Pakistan’s foreign policy is concerned. The briefing naturally focused on arguably the four most important relationships with foreign countries, three of whom are our immediate neighbours and the fourth a distant superpower. First and foremost, Sartaj Aziz was pessimistic regarding the prospect of ties with India improving any time soon. Instead, he argued, the situation called for management to avoid an increase in tensions, i.e. a minimalist, conservative management approach given the intractability of certain issues and the current atmosphere of a resurgence of suspicion and mistrust between Islamabad and New Delhi. Terrorism remains the main focus of the latter, while the former insists on all issues being put on the table, including the Kashmir question. Sartaj Aziz complained that India does not want to give us credit for our actions against terrorism and keeps using that as an excuse for not restarting the bilateral suspended dialogue. Normalisation of relations on India’s terms was not acceptable to Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz emphasised, and neither would Pakistan back down on its principled stance (i.e. all issues, including Kashmir, should be on the agenda). On relations with Afghanistan, Sartaj Aziz was equally pessimistic regarding the Afghan reconciliation process. Since the prospects were not good, he argued, all now depended on the ground situation in that country. Elimination of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour by a drone last month had sabotaged the peace dialogue. His successor, reportedly even more a hardliner, could not be asked to join the peace process. Perhaps the only way the Afghan Taliban could now be persuaded to return to the negotiating table would be if they failed to gain their objectives in the ongoing spring/summer offensive. In other words, only if the Taliban are convinced that they cannot gain all or any of what they want tactically or strategically on the battlefield might they be persuaded to return to talks. Pakistan could not take all the responsibility for bringing the Taliban to the table but could use whatever influence it had with the group to facilitate the process. Aziz also pointed out that the Afghan authorities were divided about engaging the Taliban and therefore clarity was lacking on how to take the process forward. Pakistan’s role, Aziz underlined, could not be substituted but blamed Kabul for being bogged down by historical baggage and therefore unable to see Pakistan’s major policy shift since 2013. On the repeated US and Afghan allegations of Pakistan not adequately moving against the Haqqani network, Aziz said though the objective was common, it was a matter of sequencing and timing. New coordination mechanisms agreed with Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Tashkent on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation would help address those concerns, leading also to better border management, Aziz revealed (and hopefully avoid the kind of border clashes seen in recent days). If at all there was a note of optimism, it was in Sartaj Aziz’s assertion that relations with the US were heading in the right direction despite recent setbacks such as the cancellation of the F-16 deal and continuing concerns about our nuclear programme. On Iran, the Advisor pointed to the balance being maintained between Tehran and Riyadh. Confirming Iranian President Rouhani’s statement after his visit to Pakistan that the issue of alleged Indian intelligence agent Kulbushan Jadhav was not raised during the president’s meeting with COAS General Raheel Sharif, Aziz revealed only a general concern about such activities from Iranian soil was conveyed. Advisors naturally are required to put the best gloss on their portfolio. However, the more Sartaj Aziz tried to argue Pakistan’s case vis-à-vis relations with the countries mentioned above, the more it became clear that Pakistan has problems at one level or another with all of them. According to former foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, this is because (like in all other spheres) ours is a reactive rather than active foreign policy. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in an interview says he does not know who to talk to in Pakistan (a hint at the perceived civil-military divide here). While not questioning the verity or weight of Sartaj Aziz’s explanations, the irreducible fact remains that even his survey leaves the indelible impression that Pakistan is bogged down with problems in all its important relationships outlined above. Surely that calls for revisiting our present course, exploring areas of convergence, restoring, to the extent possible, normal if not friendly ties with all our neighbours and Washington. But to even begin such a journey, perhaps first and foremost there is a need for a fulltime foreign minister.

Business Recorder column June 27, 2016

Brexit fallout Rashed Rahman The shock result of the British referendum to leave the European Union (EU) has had immediate effects and fallouts for Britain, the EU and the world. Uncertainty has gripped the markets ($ 2.1 trillion shaved off worldwide), exposed fissures in the western alliance, and deepened the regional, generational and occupational divide in British society. All these are obviously unhelpful for managing the ongoing global recession and hopes for economic recovery. Whether these are long term effects that could exacerbate the global economic crisis, only time will tell, but there are deeper long term implications of this development that mirror these short term trends and bear introspection. Three profound impacts can be determined even at this early stage: 1) implications for the unity of the United Kingdom (UK); 2) effects on the western alliance, including NATO; 3) the fallout for a world wedded since the end of the Cold War to integration, opening up of trade and borders and globalisation (of which the first three are an integral part. The UK now faces calls from Scotland for a new referendum on independence from Britain, a question asked and rejected by 55 percent of the Scottish electorate just two years ago. Scotland, unlike the overall countrywide result of 52 percent for leaving the EU as opposed to 48 percent voting to stay, overwhelmingly elected to remain within the EU. The Scottish Nationalists are already arguing that the UK they voted to stay in two years ago no longer exists. Northern Ireland too voted overwhelmingly to stay, and is now chafing at the bit. However, this sentiment is negated by the pro-UK Protestant majority in that province. Cosmopolitan London and the young throughout the country voted to stay, while ‘angry old men’, those feeling left behind by globalisation, fearing immigration taking away jobs and lowering wages (fears played on to the hilt by the Leave campaign), voted to depart. These regional, generational and occupational differences promise more strife to come. The US is clearly disappointed by the outcome. It reiterated its commitment to the special relationship with Britain and close ties with Europe (particularly NATO), but questions now hover over whether the western alliance will be able to function with quite the same cohesion and common purpose as it has since 1945. Any such weakening of the western alliance will bring benefits to China’s emergence as a global power and Russia’s revival from the ashes of the Soviet Union. The post-World War II world changed profoundly in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. But this brave new world had its own nasty surprises lurking. The horizontal expansion of capitalism into the former socialist bloc, vertical effects in terms of unequal worldwide income and wealth distribution globally, the increasing dominance of finance capital over the real economy, all these factors fed into the global recession that began in 2007. The world has yet to discover how this system can be nudged forward out of the present crisis. The fallout does not end here. Internal British politics (apart from Scotland and Northern Ireland) has been roiled. The Conservative Party faces a bitter leadership struggle after Prime Minister David Cameron announced his decision to leave by October, while the Labour Party faces a revolt by a significant section of the leadership against its leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Arguably, Cameron could have done without calling the referendum. It was an attempt to quell the Eurosceptic right within his party, as well as counter the rise of the EU-hating (and baiting) UK Independence Party (UKIP). But the move badly backfired. The Leave camp played on irrational fears and insecurities (as the ‘morning after’ revelations of the hollowness of its claims and promises indicate), which triumphed over good sense and Britain’s own interests. Both Cameron’s government and the opposition Labour Party (particularly its leader Corbyn) ran a weak and lacklustre Remain campaign that could not match the emotionally charged notions of the Leave campaign to recover so-called independence from a distant, bureaucratic rule by Brussels (the EU capital). The British media too was heavily skewed in favour of leaving, and failed to frame the debate in a manner that would inform, educate and enlighten its audience. There are lessons here for us in Pakistan regarding how an irresponsible media can wreak havoc to a country’s future and intrinsic interests. The outcome of the referendum therefore can be regarded as a protest vote fuelled by fear, anger and ignorance. Now that some of the wild claims and promises of the Leave campaign are being punctured, causing the leading lights of that side of the divide to retreat on their most extreme positions, afterthoughts seem to be creeping into the public sphere, including a petition signed by over two million people for another Brexit referendum. Whether the result can be reversed is highly unlikely, especially since European leaders are impatient and angry with Britain and want the exit process speeded up. Britain may well, in the wake of Brexit, be facing a fresh election by next year. Brexit will obviously be at the heart of all parties’ campaigns, whether for or against, and may well strengthen the forces of the right that successfully exploited paranoia, hate and preconceived notions to mislead the public and win. British politics may therefore be heading for a polarisation that would erode the positions of centrist parties like the Conservative and Labour Parties at the hands of rightist and leftist challengers from within and without. Whether the world will come out of the slough of despond it seems to have fallen into post-Brexit remains in the realm of conjecture. But certainly there are questions regarding the architecture of a post-Brexit new world. Meantime it would not be remiss to ponder how Britain, the great historic ‘divide and rule’ practitioner, appears to have been hoist on its own petard. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

Business Recorder Editorial June 25, 2016

A painful ‘divorce’ The British referendum’s result has produced nothing less than a shock wave that has travelled beyond the UK’s boundaries to shake the European Union (EU) to its core, and the rest of the world in its pocket. After 43 years of being part of the EU, the British vote saw a high 72 percent turnout, with a final 52 to 48 percent decision to leave. The outcome is not only a blow to the dream of a united Europe, it runs counter to the contemporary trend towards globalisation. The ‘Leave’ vote exposed the fissures in British society, with older people who felt left behind by globalization and blamed EU immigration for low wages turning their backs on Europe, while the young, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to remain. The Scottish Nationalists, having lost an independence referendum in 2014, reasserted the need for a fresh independence referendum given their overwhelming two-thirds majority in favour of staying in the EU. The irony is that the Scots seem to want to stay in a 43-year-old union with Europe from which they say they are being parted against their wishes, while seeking to break away from a hundreds of years old union within the UK. Northern Ireland’s case, despite a majority vote in favour of staying, is complicated as far as any notion of breaking away and joining the Irish Republic to the south is concerned, because of the opposition to the idea of the pro-UK Protestant majority in the territory. British Prime Minister David Cameron clearly miscalculated, failing to effectively counter the Leave campaign’s rhetoric stoking xenophobic fears, atavistic hatreds and scapegoating immigration. In the best British democratic tradition though, Cameron has announced he will step down in October in deference to the expressed will of the British electorate. His likely successor may or may not be former London mayor Boris Johnson, who lent a late but credible voice to the Leave campaign. Britain, a latecomer (1973) to the EU, is the first major power to leave it. This has inevitably given rise to questions about the future of the EU. The reaction of EU leaders ranged from shock and introspection about the need to ‘invent’ another Europe (French Prime Minister Manuel Valls) to more considered responses and thoughtfulness regarding what is being considered a watershed for European unification (Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany). A flurry of European leaders’ meetings is to follow the shock development in the next few days to consider the vexed question of the difficult negotiations ahead regarding the UK’s withdrawal terms. The EU rules specify a two-year period for this process, which can only be extended by EU members’ consensus. Given the discernible underlying anger throughout the EU leadership over the referendum result, it seems that Britain will have its work cut out for it in these difficult negotiations. Naturally, London would prefer to retain some if not all of the advantages of EU membership (market access, London’s role as financial capital, etc.) while shedding political control from the EU capital Brussels. One model being touted as a possible solution is the Switzerland one, in which access to the EU single market and labour mobility is available but permanent settlement or acquiring citizenship by ‘guest workers’ is not. EU leaders’ sentiment in the aftermath of the referendum seems to be a hard line on Britain now speeding up if possible the ‘irreversible’ exit process. The predictions about the fallout of an exit vote have already started to kick in, with both Britain’s and the world’s markets, finance community and investors showing signs of skittishness, panic and gloom. The British pound has fallen precipitously, and some experts think the UK may well tip into recession within a year. While the vote has strengthened far right leaders and parties across Europe, it has also emboldened them and many Eurosceptics to demand similar referenda in their own countries. These ‘unravelling’ threats are going to be on top of EU leaders’ consultations, as well as a smooth divorce from Britain. The political and economic architecture of the contemporary world will likely have to be revisited, bilaterally by Britain, and collectively by the rest of the developed world. While EU leaders are seized of the need to ensure that the idea of a unified Europe as a guarantee of European peace that can avoid a repetition of the destructiveness of the two World Wars of the twentieth century survives this jolt, it may also have to reckon with the widespread sense of disillusionment with the EU that afflicts many countries in Europe and on which the far right feeds. What needs to be avoided is a return to the system of competing rival nation-states in Europe that provided in the past the fuel for devastating wars and conflict. The EU may have its flaws, but as an antidote to the nation-states’ proclivity for mutual conflict, it has yet to be superseded by a better idea.

Business Recorder editorial June 22, 2016

Refugee deluge The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has reported on World Refugee Day, June 20, that persecution and conflict in countries such as Syria and Afghanistan has raised the total number of refugees and internally displaced people worldwide to a record 65.3 million at the end of last year. Turkey had the largest number for the second year running at 2.5 million people, nearly all from neighbouring Syria. Pakistan had a residual 1.6 million from Afghanistan while Lebanon hosted 1.1 million. This 65.3 million is the highest figure since World War II, itself the harbinger of the greatest refugee populace in global history till that point. In 2014 the refugee and displaced persons total had already reached 60 million, but 2015 saw Lebanon, Turkey and Europe stagger under the weight of a human deluge of proportions seldom seen before. UNHCR has appealed to global leaders to bend their backs to end the wars that are fanning this mass exodus. The UNHCR report starkly highlights the scale of the problem by pointing out that on average 24 people had been displaced per minute last year, which amounts to 34,000 people per day. Global displacement has doubled since 1997 and risen by 50 percent since 2011, when the Syrian war began. Counting the global population as 7.349 billion currently, one out of every 113 people on Earth is now internally displaced or a refugee. They currently number more than the populations of Britain or France. Of the total 65.3 million, 40.8 million remain within their own country (internally displaced), 21.3 million have fled across borders as refugees, while the remaining are asylum seekers. The world’s largest and oldest refugee populace is still the Palestinians at over five million, dating back to the creation of Israel in 1948. Syria now has the dubious distinction of being next on the list with 4.9 million refugees, followed by Afghanistan (2.7 million) and Somalia (1.1 million). These figures, horrendous as they are, do not convey fully the human stories and images that flesh out this desperate exodus of humanity from war-torn countries. The issue, as seen in the refugee crisis in Europe of late, is fraught since it encompasses religion, race, immigration, etc. It is politically charged and has been used to justify xenophobia, scapegoating, hatred and intolerance. In the US and Europe, it has fuelled the rise of neo-fascism (Trump and the far right respectively). Leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, who took a compassionate view of the refugees’ plight, stand out as the exception, and not without being attacked at home and in Europe by the far right. Pakistan too has hosted millions of Afghan refugees since the 1980s following the Soviet invasion and occupation of their country. Although their numbers have dwindled relatively over the years, they continue to be singled out from time to time, and especially when a major terrorist incident occurs or the issue of tackling criminality reappears on the agenda. This trend seems to be increasing of late. Since Pakistan’s recent crackdown on Afghans entering Pakistan illegally (a practice allowed since 1947), the hostility towards such persons has received an ‘official’ fillip (250 Afghans who entered Pakistan illegally were deported on June 21 after waiting for days for the border skirmishes at Torkham to subside). Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz said in a television interview the other day that Afghan refugee camps had become safe havens for terrorists and that the Afghan refugees had brought drugs, guns and instability to Pakistan. While such perceptions are not new and may even carry weight, creeping weariness with the long standing presence of millions of Afghan refugees on our soil notwithstanding (during which time successive governments virtually allowed these refugees a free run inside Pakistan), we should refrain from sweeping statements that in today’s context resemble the vitriol being heaped on the refugees’ heads in the west. Nowhere in the world is the life of a refugee a bed of roses. Displaced people all over the world, no matter what their country of origin or circumstances, would prefer to go home if it is possible and viable. But to achieve this desirable goal, conflicts and wars, old and new, that have given birth to this immense and continuing human tragedy, would have to be brought to a close and the powers-that-be to abjure the kind of regime change and direct military interventions that have given rise to today’s enormous refugee phenomenon in the first place.

Business Recorder editorial June 18, 2016

A government adrift The parliamentary committee on appointment of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) members has elected Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid as its chairman on Friday. The government has belatedly woken up to the urgency of expediting the process of appointment of four members of the non-functional ECP after its members representing the four provinces retired. It is not as though their impending retirement was not known in advance. Yet the government, in what seems to have become its functioning style, failed to plan for the transition in timely fashion. As in so many other instances, the government has fallen into the habit of eleventh hour responses to even tasks that are constitutionally required. The hiatus in the functioning of the ECP after the four members' retirement has brought its work grinding to a halt. By-elections as well as the completion of indirect local bodies elections for nazims, etc, not to mention the oath taking of local elected representatives, a lapse that caused much consternation and anger in Karachi the other day when the oath taking of mayor and other local bodies representatives was cancelled at the last minute. The government seems so distracted by the Panama leaks and the illness of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as to resemble a rudderless ship without a firm hand on the tiller. Whether it is security or foreign policy or even domestic political, economic and social issues, the government appears adrift and in purely reactive mode, without much evidence of forethought or forward planning. To cover up this dysfunction, the government, in the shape of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in the Senate, tried to put forward a mea culpa by stating that the government wanted to initiate and complete the appointments process earlier, but the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill seeking to broaden the criteria for appointment as members of the ECP beyond its previous confinement to members of the judiciary or individuals qualified to be appointed to the judiciary, could not be passed on the government's preferred date of May 19 because of a lack of the two-thirds majority required in parliament. He also expressed his government's intent to put an electoral reforms package before parliament, for which a draft unified electoral law was almost ready and all election rules and laws were being consolidated for the purpose. He also stated that the government would send 12 names, three for each province, to the parliamentary committee by Saturday. Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani found it necessary to observe that the government could have started the process earlier and pointed out that the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed by the Senate on June 2 and sent to the President for his assent the same day, but he chose to sit on it for seven days. Rabbani told the government that its proposed electoral reforms package would have to be brought to parliament in the form of another constitutional amendment. The rules governing the ECP state that any member slots to be filled have to be done within 45 days of a vacancy. It remains to be seen whether at the present tardy pace, the deadline will be met or not. Articles 213 and 218 lay down the provisions for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and ECP members. They require that the prime minister, in consultation with the leader of the opposition, forward three names for appointment to every vacant post of the ECP to the parliamentary committee. If there is no consensus between the two sides on the names, they are required to forward separate lists to the committee for consideration, deliberation, and confirmation of one name for each slot. The government's performance on this score underlines its inability to deal with either weighty or routine matters in a timely and efficient manner. Given the controversies that dogged the last general election in 2013, it is imperative that a credible ECP, acceptable to and enjoying the confidence of all the parties and the public, be installed so as to make future elections controversy-free. The democratic system cannot achieve overall credibility unless the first step, free and fair elections whose results are accepted by all stakeholders, become the norm.

Business Recorder editorial June 15, 2016

Orlando fallout The Orlando, Florida massacre of 49 people with another 53 wounded by a US-born man of Afghan origin has evoked an atmosphere of hate and fear mongering inside the US and in Europe. It has directly impacted the ongoing presidential race, with Donald Trump stoking the fires of prejudice and Islamophobia. Initially during his run for the Republican nomination, Trump wanted all Muslim immigration to the US banned. By now, perhaps because he was condemned roundly for going against the basic founding tenets of the US, he has ‘retreated’ to only wanting immigration from areas with a proven track record of terrorism banned. Topping his list of countries from which immigration should be banned are Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. He then went on to argue that Islamic State (IS) was recruiting American Muslims to fight in the US, and ‘taking over’ American children to convince them how wonderful IS and Islam are. Political correctness, he declared, cripples the ability to talk, think and act clearly (aimed no doubt at President Barack Obama). Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, his Democratic rival in the presidential race, warned against demonising American Muslims. Such inflammatory rhetoric, she cautioned, makes the US less safe, while talk of banning Muslim immigration was offensive and counterproductive. The US’s open, diverse society, she argued, was an asset in the struggle against terrorism, not a liability. Islam is not our adversary, Muslims are peaceful and tolerant and have nothing to do with terrorism, she emphasised. The exchange of statements between the two front runners in the US presidential race and the commentary going on in the US media indicates that the Orlando tragedy has placed Muslims centre-stage once again in the presidential race. It has been there before, especially after the San Bernardino, California incident of December 2, 2015, when a couple of Pakistani origin killed 14 people at a party. However, the high casualty count in Orlando, and its proximity to the presidential election on November 8, 2016, has ensured it will remain a major issue throughout the campaign. Across the Atlantic, European far right parties and forces are portraying the wave of refugees and immigrants inundating its shores as a serious threat. Terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, etc, have fed into this scare mongering. In Britain, on the eve of its Brexit referendum, the ‘out’ campaigners are warning against an Orlando-type terrorist incident arriving in Britain if it remains within the European Union. It does not seem that incidents like these, including the knifing to death of a police commander and his partner in France by a French-born, Moroccan-origin man, are necessarily IS-controlled. The ‘lone wolf’, IS-inspired phenomenon has arrived with a vengeance. Unlike al-Qaeda, which prefers organized, planned attacks, IS’s message is radicalizing the progeny of immigrant parents to carry out these bloody attacks that are indiscriminate in nature. The Orlando incident may or may not have had a homophobic aspect to it, but the blood of the innocent spilt there drowns out such nuances. The reaction from the Right, hate, fear mongering and Islamophobia, are providing the terrorists an effective propaganda tool. This may have global repercussions since it plays into the hands of groups like IS, whose thesis is built upon the foundation that the west hates Muslims per se. Relations between the Muslim world and the west, particularly the US (thanks to Trump) may deteriorate amongst a welter of accusations and counter-accusations, deepening and widening the gulf that has already appeared because of terrorist attacks by a few fanatics on western soil. Pakistan is already feeling the wind of US alienation because of the Afghan conundrum. Other Muslim countries, even those well disposed towards the west, may soon find the space for friendship shrinking. That promises a world riven by even more conflict, terrorism and war. To pull humanity back from this brink requires sensible parties and forces in the west to combat this castigation of an entire religion and its believers and equally, such forces in the Muslim world are required to create an effective narrative against the distorted version of Islam put out by the terrorists, as well as continuing actions to put them out of business.