Politics and Governance

Notwithstanding PPP and ANP desperately trying to avoid impending rout by delaying the electoral process, approximately 86 million people will be eligible to decide the country’s fate on Saturday May 11, 2013.

Kayani put to rest widespread doubts by reiterating the army’s commitment supporting the election schedule, 70000 troops fanning out to deploy in sensitive areas. 35 million voters of the 80 eligible (about 44%) exercised their right in 2008.  Alongwith fake degrees a greater number of votes (37 million, 46%) being bogus and/or duplicate undermined the credibility of the “elected” Assemblies and served to show the disfigured face of our “democracy”. These “anomalies” have now been removed, to an extent.  Given the ineffectiveness of the due diligence conducted by the ECP, these frauds will be soon be back in Parliament.

The voting percentage represents the barometer of the will of the people, it is impossible to quantify whether the aspirations of the people desperate for change will be translated into votes.  Whoever thought up the idea of launching the movie “Chambeli” at this particular time has a genius for impact and sheer timing.  The spontaneous reaction of the audience captures the deep resentment against the existing feudal system, coincidence that the content and theme is synonymous with Imran Khan’s message?  With a majority of youth and women already vowing for him, Imran Khan has woken up dormant society, will his unfortunate injury galvanize the populace to vote the difference for this nation, his party and for himself on May 11?

Constant terrorist attacks notwithstanding, about 43 million (nearly 50%), are expected to turn out.  17 million (20%) voters ages 18 - 25 years and women across the age divide being very visibly enthused may cross the 45 million voters (52%) mark.  Coincidentally 17 million now between the ages 51-70 were in the age group 18-25 in rooting for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1970 in the vain hope of acquiring “Roti, Kapra aur Makan”.   PPP, MQM and ANP candidates are being targetted by terrorists as “liberals” but other parties are also being attacked, JUI (F) lost 25 killed in Kurram Agency this Sunday and 5 in Hangu a day later. PPP, ANP and PML (Q) stand to become politically “endangered species” on May 11, only the MQM vote bank (about 2.5 million) remains intact. Notwithstanding the excellent Benazir Income Support Program (BISP) initiative, discredited and in disarray, PPP will be lucky to get close to their 10 million tally in 2008.  Most of 2008’s 8 million PML (Q) votes will return to PML (N), ANP registering far less than their half million plus votes in 2008.  PTI stands to match the PML(N) popular vote estimated at about 14 million votes (6.7 million in 2008). JUI (F) and JI will each poll half a million plus with “independents” getting 5-6 million votes.

The Federal capital has 0.6 million (0.33 males 0.27 females) voting for 2 NA seats and FATA 1.75 million (1.15 males 0.59 females) for its 12 NA seats. The 61 NA seats in Sindh voted for by 18.7 million voters (10.3 males, 8.4 females) are divided demographically along rural, urban and urban-rural constituencies. Primarily due pre-poll rigging PPP will still retain 27 or so NA rural seats. PML (F) alliance with nationalists and PML (N) could manage upto 9-10 seats, MQM will retain its 19 urban seats, PML (N) two with a seat each for ANP and PML (Q).  PPP will lead the Provincial coalition with MQM and ANP as partners.

Wooing 3.34 million (1.9 males 1.4 females) voters for 14 NA seats in Balochistan are PML (N), Balochistan National Party (BNP) headed by Akhtar Mengal, Mehmood Khan Achakzai’s Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP), JUI (F) and Hasil Khan Bizenjo’s National Party (NP), NA contenders include JUI (Nazaryati) (separated from JUI (F)) and Bugti’s Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP).  PML (N) may get 3 seats, BNP, PKMAP, JUI (F) and NP 2 each, and 1 seat each for JUI (N), JWP and independent.  The Provincial coalition is up for sale!

Faced with a meltdown, ANP are citing security fears.  The battle-fatigue of the 12.3 million (7.04 males 5.3 females) KPK electorate has been force-multiplied by blatant corruption. ANP may at best win 4-5 NA seats out of 35 NA seats and maybe 12-15 PA seats. Gaining most from ANP’s misery, PTI will take some seats also from PPP, collecting between 12-15 NA seats. PPP will retain 5-6 seats.   Its Hazara stronghold should get PML (N)  7-8 NA seats overall, JUI will have 4-5 seats, one each for Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Aftab Sherpao.  PTI could lead the Provincial coalition but so could PML (N) if PTI cannot get the numbers together.

Nearly 49 million voters (27.6 males 21.4 females) will battle for 148 NA seats in the Punjab.  PPP will manage around 18-20 NA seats with PML (Q) getting 10-12 NA “electables”, about 10 will go to independents.  PML (N) should get 80 seats and PTI 50 on the 2008 pattern.   If near 50% vote, it will tilt towards PTI, PML (N) could have 70 and PTI 65 NA seats.  The Punjab Provincial elections is presently a toss-up.  PPP will peak at 40-45 seats with PML (Q) bagging 15 and MQM 19 NA seats, JUI (F) 7 and JI about 5 seats. There may be 12-15 independents.   With five million possible overseas voters eligible, Imran’s tally could have gone up by 3.5 million if ECP had not denied the Pakistani diaspora abroad their right of vote.

Adding independents, either party will need the magic 100 plus seats to lead a coalition government.  While there is virtually no difference ideologically between PML (N) and PTI bad-mouthing between  PML (N) and PTI has been quite vicious and quite unnecessary. Having been outmaneuvered time and again by Zardari’s duplicity, can Nawaz Sharif rely on the reliably unreliable? Moreover the pound of flesh Zardari will extract will be a political price (re-election as President) almost impossible for PML (N) to pay. Whatever way one looks at it, whether PML (N) is in front or PTI is, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan must come together.

The nightmare of the last five years was symbolised by the rule of law being broken by the rulers as their convoluted version of governance, something highlighted in “Chambeli”.  Despite his grievous head and back injuries Imran Khan gave a dramatic and emotional appeal to the people from his hospital bed, “I have done what I have to do, that was my responsibility.  Now you do what is your responsibility.”  Observers agree that the wave of sympathy for him and his exhortation for the people to change their destiny by going to vote on May 11 will encourage them to flock to the polls. The fact of his electronic media appearance from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on prime TV in contrast to his opponents will help PTI.  We are on the verge of salvation, the Sharif’s spontaneous reaction to Imran’s injury, Mian Sahib’s suspending of his campaign for a day, shows compromise is possible by recognizing each other’s popular mandate and working out an amicable relationship to ensure good governance.  Only adherence to the rule of law will usher in the peace and prosperity that the people of this country have been denied and badly deserve. 

Imran’s injury, though unfortunate, is the game changer for compromise badly needed in Pakistan politics.  There is a time to fight and a time to unite!

To read full published article click here.

In the wake of the Boston marathon bombings, Sehgal maintained that the Tsarnaev brothers represent "a new breed completely" who operate without directly affiliating with known terrorist groups.

At a recent EWI talk, Sehgal addressed terrorism in the context of Pakistan's political instability.

About 40 participants from around the globe, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, China, the United States and Europe, attended the EastWest Institute’s Istanbul conference, “Afghanistan Reconnected,”  in Istanbul  on April 10-11. Sponsored by the UAE, Germany and Turkey, this is the first of five conferences over the next two years focusing on improving the infrastructure within Afghanistan. The goal is to see how the country can best link up with its neighbors to fully develop its potential as an economic land bridge in Asia.

“Achievements on the security front will be fleeting unless they are underpinned by sustainable economic development,” Ambassador Fatih Ceylan of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned participants at the opening of the conference. Many reiterated the point that the market won’t wait for those in power to make decisions necessary for economic development. “Afghanistan Reconnected” comes at a critical time as the 2014 troop withdrawal approaches and Afghanistan begins to transit from a security economy to a more sustainable peace economy with sufficient growth and revenue.

The business communities of the region voiced their interest in unimpeded trade and more business opportunities, discussing the challenges in developing the hard and soft infrastructure required to enhance Afghanistan’s connectivity. Attendees agreed that Afghanistan’s economic potential will only be optimized when it becomes a transit route for trade and continental transport connecting people and markets in East and South Asia, Central Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

“We need to develop a cooperative framework through which we are able to bind the region in a web of trade, energy and transport linkages,” Ambika Sharma, deputy secretary general and head of the International Division at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry told the participants. Those linkages, she added, “will not only act as a major confidence building measure, but will also contribute to greater economic synergies in the region and spur economic growth in Afghanistan and beyond.”

Another key issue at the conference was the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the need to enhance regular trade in line with the Afghanistan Pakistan Trade and Transit Agreement (APTTA). Attendees discussed the potential opportunities of the Southern Corridor from India to the Middle East and Europe. Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Robert Finn of Princeton University analyzed the relationship between Afghanistan and countries of Central Asia, referring to the economic benefits of using the shorter Southern Corridor for container shipment.

Dr. S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University and a leading expert focused discussion on impediments to trade as well as easy gains from prompt improvements. Several participants from Pakistan and Afghanistan recognized the existing trust-deficit in the region as a major obstacle to developing its full potential. Najlla Habibyar, head of Afghanistan’s Export Promotion Agency, also emphasized the potential for her country to move from being an importer to an exporter of energy with the right infrastructure in place.

Despite the enormous hurdles, participants believed that there are tremendous regional possibilities.

“Only regional cooperation can fully unlock the immense potential of Afghanistan and its neighbors," Jan Kubis, UN Special Representative and Head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) pointed out. “Among the multitude of platforms it is the recently conceived Afghan-led and regionally owned Istanbul/Heart of Asia process that could be used both for mobilizing political will for cooperation and promoting a culture of working together in topical areas of common interest.”

The conference agreed on a number of recommendations to aid the development of the infrastructure network within Afghanistan and beyond in the short, medium and long term. Both the Afghan government representatives and the Afghan parliamentarians vowed to take swift action and expressed the commitment to follow up on these recommendations. Among them:  increased efforts to fully implement APTTA as well as its gradual extension to India; the removal impediments to the fast transfer of goods between Kandahar and the Pakistani port at Gwadar; and the strengthening of the Afghan’s government’s ability to maintain its roads and develop and extend its rail network.

Read the conference summary and recommendations.

"China blasts US for Asia-Pacific military build-up,” The Guardian. April 16.

"China is a cyberwar victim too," Foreign Policy. April 16.

"Afghanistan opium production increases for third year," The New York Times. April 16.

“Duma to Consider Lifting Ban on Child Adoptions” The Moscow Times. April 17.

"China Asks to Postpone Japan, Korea Summit," The Wall Street Journal. April 18.

"North Korea lays out tough pre-conditions for talks," The Times of India. April 18.

Follow EWI on Twitter @EWInstitute for continuing news updates.

Compiled by Michael McShane, Athina Doutis, Alex Schulman and Haolin Liu.

Sehgal, who is also a political columnist for Pakistani newspapers such as The News International, decried the high level of privilege and corruption in Pakistan’s government. As an example, he noted that “70 percent of the legislators in the last parliament were neither registered taxpayers, nor were paying taxes themselves.”

He also warned that a lethal nexus of “corruption, organized crime and terrorism” is a chronic problem, producing contradictory trends. While the counter-insurgency strategy of Pakistani’s army has scored notable successes, he noted: “We have not really won the war against terrorism. Terrorism is alive and well in Pakistan.” A big part of the problem, he added, is that “the political will to fight terrorism is not really there in the current government.”

However, Sehgal does see some hope in the  May elections. He noted that Pakistani women are increasingly involved in politics, as are growing numbers of newly registered young voters. The latter group has been attracted to politics by compelling figures such as Imran Khan, the former star cricket player-turned-politician. While not a member of Khan’s party, Sehgal insisted that he was “better than the corrupt people that we now have in power.”

Elections aside, the domestic fate of Pakistan is very much dependent on its neighbors—and, in particular, on Afghanistan. What happens following the withdrawal of foreign troops from that country next year will have an immediate impact on Pakistan, he cautions.  

“The Afghan vacuum will spill over to Pakistan,” he declared. Although he does not see foresee a sudden dissolution of Afghanistan after foreign troops exit the country, he predicts that “it will happen gradually” unless the Afghan authorities perform better than they do now.

Nonetheless, Sehgal believes that Pakistan could have a bright future, in part, because of its considerable resources and skilled manpower. “We are one of the few developing nations that can feed and clothe our citizens,” he said. He then went on to rank his country as one of the world’s highest producers of copper, gold, coal, wheat, milk, cotton and other crucial resources. “I am an optimist about Pakistan,” he concluded.

Sehgal previously spoke at EWI’s 9^th Worldwide Security Conference in Brussels, focusing on Economic Security in Southwest Asia. Watch the video of his address here.

The phrase ‘may you live in interesting times’ is a Chinese curse heaped on an enemy. Frederic Coudert quotes an unknown British diplomat in 1936: “No age has been fraught with more insecurity than our present time.” Three years later the Second World War ravaged the world between 1939 and 1945. We in Pakistan have never ceased to live through such times throughout our checkered history.

Because of the geographical location and the consequent world politics that goes with it, our geopolitical situation is made tenuous because of religious diversities and permutations and combinations thereof. Notwithstanding the economic potential of an area astride the Indus River descending to a fertile delta from the high Karakoram Mountains down to the Indian Ocean, rich in agriculture and blessed with both minerals and skilled manpower we are perennially in crisis, mostly man-made disasters – earthquake and floods aside.

The hex on Pakistan is mainly because of the leaders we have been cursed with across the broad spectrum since the early demise of the Quaid in 1949 and the subsequent assassination of his close aide, Shaheed Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951. We continue to survive as a nation only because of the enormous resilience our people are blessed with. Even the bloody wake-up call we got in 1971 seemed only momentarily to distract us, thereafter it was back to "business" as usual of perennial bad governance. Things are even worse in that part of Pakistan, now Bangladesh since 1971.

A history of incompetence and corruption is further complicated by less than three million out of 180 million people paying direct taxes. The economy remains under pressure because of seriously deficient revenues. Consider: 70 percent of the legislators in the last parliament, who imperiously imposed taxes on the people, were neither registered taxpayers nor were they paying taxes themselves. The battle cry of the New Republic in 1776, “no taxation without representation,” could be paraphrased for Pakistan as “no taxation with representation.”

The leaders of two major political parties are the richest men in the country. Asif Ali Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif till very recently paid less tax than even the lowest salaried person in their own employ liable to pay taxes. Hiding of illegal wealth by misdeclaration and failure to pay requisite taxes are endemic, as are fake credentials being used to enter parliament and preside over the destiny of the nation. The many discrepancies in declaring their income and assets in previous years should by itself be enough to disqualify most, if not all, of the previous parliamentarians.

Enormous amounts of money are flowing out of the country, take for example the judgement in the UK by Justice Hamblen on February 13, 2013 in favour of complainant Deutsche Bank (Suisse) against Senator Gulzar Khan of the PPP, his sons Senators Waqar Khan (for some time the federal minister for privatisation and investment) and Ammar Khan, Senator Gulzar’s wife Razia Sultana and their daughter Sehr Asher and seven off-shore companies.

The judgement encompassing 73 pages includes mind-boggling amounts for purchase of the most expensive property in London in 2007, ultimately exceeding UK Pounds Sterling 100 million (Rs15 billion). The challenge for the ECP as a test case, how much taxes did these five billionaires pay in Pakistan, or the UK, ie if any, and pray what was their need for setting up seven off-shore companies?

The media as a champion of accountability has been correctly measured by those it, in theory, is meant to hold accountable. Details about the enormous wealth transferred abroad (what to talk about their bank defaults) of stalwarts of many political parties are not reported in Pakistan at all, or made public as they should be. Our media does not venture asking “inconvenient” questions; can any in the print and/or electronic media dare question why our topmost holder of public office does not declare his assets as every public official should?

The immediate problem is to ensure free and fair translation of the wishes of the electorate on May 11. In 2002 the military’s favourites were manoeuvred into public office, give credit to Maj Gen (r) Ihtesham Zamir (then of the ISI), son of late Zamir jafri, for his moral courage in standing up and accepting his responsibility for selectively rigging the vote for favourites on Gen Musharraf’s (‘illegal’) instructions. While the 2008 electoral process was not interfered into by the army, it was so badly flawed that hundreds entered parliament with fake educational qualifications and without correctly declaring their income, sources thereof and assets. The present process of scrutiny of candidates was deliberately rushed to pressurise officials of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the field to accept flawed credentials of intending candidates.

In a case reported as ‘PLD 1984 Supreme Court (of Pakistan)’ Page 44 says: “Perjury is one of the most heinous social and moral offences. An offence punishable under the law as stipulated under Section 194 of the PPC, it is also against the injunctions of the Holy Quran (Sura Al-Nisa: 135), an evil which tends to disrupt the very basis of social order and make a mockery of the judicial system, be it Islamic or otherwise”.

Consider our uniformed young men in Swat, South Waziristan and elsewhere, as well as innocent civilians throughout the land, dying by the hundreds while frauds and perjurers revel in the luxuries and trappings of power while lording over us as feudals. To quote TV anchor Talat Hussain: “The greater the fraud the greater the reward in Pakistan.”

Telling lies under oath is a favorite (and profitable) pastime in South Asia, particularly in Pakistan. A person giving or fabricating false evidence is liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment, extending to ten years, and also liable to fine. Instead of getting entangled in legal technicalities proving the evidence as per our rather outdated and defective "laws of evidence" inherited from the British (who have long since changed them), if prima facie the previous declaration of assets by the candidates and filing of related information differs substantially from that submitted presently, evidenced also without commensurate increase in paying of taxes, then they are guilty of perjury.

Will we want certified perjurers to rule over our nation’s destiny for another five years? Or will the Supreme Court condone perjury under the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ for sustaining democracy come what may at all costs, even to the peril of the nation?

Ikram Sehgal is a security analyst and chairman of PATHFINDER GROUP. He will be appearing at EWI's New York Center on April 16 to discuss "The Future of Pakistan." 

What do you feel is the motivation for this recent ratcheting up of the rhetoric and threats by the North Korean leadership?

In this situation, we have a young leader who feels he has to prove himself—in particular, to his generals. Kim Jong-un wants to solidify his claim to authority after his father’s death. He also has to prove himself internationally and I think he is being advised that this is the way to do it. You can look at similar actions that have occurred earlier – the 2006 and 2009 nuclear bomb tests, for example. They’ve also shut down Kaesong City before, as they did earlier this week. These things were done in the past to demonstrate the nation’s sovereignty; they also seem to think that this bolsters the country’s reputation in the world. I think the difference this time is that everything is happening much quicker. The pace is greater in terms of the amount of rhetoric and the threats to South Korea, the region and even to the embassies in Pyongyang.

Are these actions being taken seriously by the international community?

If you look at reports out of Pyongyang, the embassies have not fled, so it appears that foreign government officials have become immune to the rhetoric. On the other hand, I know the United States takes it very seriously. It’s one of those situations where the probability of an attack is pretty low, but the risk of large scale casualties and damage is dramatic. So you need to take actions appropriately, factoring in the tremendous risk if you get it wrong.

Based on your experiences in South Korea working with the U.S. military, can you offer an estimate of North Korea’s offensive capacity?

Their initial capacity is rather large: there are estimates of up to 7,000 artillery tubes that can reach Seoul, which could produce millions of casualties during an initial assault. On the other hand, the counterattack from the combined forces command would be devastating to North Korea. I believe that they know that. The only thing that they could do is to inflict a huge amount of casualties in Seoul and then the combined South Korean and U.S. forces would attack rather quickly and it would be pretty ugly for North Korea.

So that’s your assessment of the worst-case scenario?

The worst case scenario would be an an artillery and ground attack on Seoul. There would be immediate casualties in South Korea followed by a decisive coalition counter attack. Withan armyof over 600,000 soldiers, South Korea would provide the primary ground troops. The air and naval forces associated with that attack would be strongly supported by the United States.

Setting aside government propaganda, how do you think the average North Korean citizen views the current situation?

North Korea is a country that has been isolated for well over 50 years to an incredible degree. In 1953, the average North Korean and average South Korean were very much alike, even physically. Today the average North Korean is about three inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter than the average South Korean. There has been a policy of starvation for three generations. I think North Koreans support the government because that’s the only thing they know. If average North Koreans had a greater understanding of the outside world and could see the dramatically higher standard of living that South Koreans enjoy, I think they would be opposed to their government’s actions. But, of course, that’s why they’re kept isolated.

Given China’s role as North Korea’s only ally, do you think that it will work to lessen tensions? There were some recent comments from President Xi warning North Korea indirectly not to stir up trouble.

China stands to lose a huge amount, as does the entire region, if the situation spins out of control. The enormous economic progress we’ve seen would be jeopardized. Like President Xi, Russia’s President Putin and German Chancellor Merkel cautioned the North Koreans to avoid provocations. I think that, if needed, both Russia and China would take stronger actions to try to stop Pyongyang from doing something foolhardy.

EastWest Direct is an ongoing series of interviews with EWI experts tied to breaking news stories.

"Here's North Korea's official declaration of 'War.'" The Washington Post. March 30.

"Kim Calls Atomic Weapons Top Priority as Korea Tensions Rise," Bloomberg. Apr 1.

"Understand Xi Jinping’s Renaissance, Put it in Historical Context," CSIS. Apr 1.

"UN treaty is first aimed at regulating global arms sales." The New York Times. April 2. 

“Report urges cuts in nukes, greater US-Russia cooperation to end ‘Cold War autopilot’ strategy," The Washington Post, April 3. 

“North Korea Seen Unable to Deliver Nuclear Attack on U.S.,” Bloomberg. April 4.

Follow EWI on Twitter @EWInstitute for continuing news updates.

Compiled by Michael McShane, Athina Doutis, Alex Schulman and Haolin Liu.

In recent months, the words of American politicians on the subject of transatlantic relations have often sounded a bit like the Van Morrison classic: “Have I told you lately that I love you?” Since the U.S. government announced its “pivot” toward the Asia-Pacific, hardly a speech has failed to mention a clear commitment to Europe: ‘Europe is still America's most important partner. America will not abandon Europe. Vice President Joe Biden is not making a special journey to Beijing, but to Germany for the Munich Security Conference.’ And so on, and so forth.

In Europe, and in Germany in particular, we like hearing these things. On both sides of the Atlantic, we seem to have this feeling that our affection for one another needs to be constantly reaffirmed. Where does this insecurity come from? Transatlantic relations are actually more harmonious and less problematic than they have been for a long time. However, in certain ways, we have begun living – staying with the metaphor – somewhat separate lives.

Both of us – Americans and Europeans – have recently been occupied largely with ourselves. The Europeans' attention has been primarily directed towards managing the Euro crisis, while the Americans, for their part, have themselves been struggling with the effects of the financial crisis and a highly polarized and self-obstructing political class. European politicians shake their heads over the endless disputes in Congress about the debt ceiling, while their American colleagues press the EU to finally generate more economic growth in Europe.

In the realm of foreign policy, the U.S. is strengthening its involvement in the Asia-Pacific, whereas Europe is barely considering its own strategic role there. On the other hand, in and around Europe, the U.S. no longer insists on taking the leading role in conflicts and interventions – for the first time since NATO was founded. This was the case in Libya and now once again in Mali.

The U.S. and NATO cannot be everywhere at once, their officials say. At the same time, they warn Europeans against further reducing their defense expenditures. Complaints were recently heard in Paris that the U.S. was demanding large payments for providing urgently required transport capabilities for the Mali operation. Perhaps this was only a misunderstanding - but it somehow seems symptomatic.

Europeans and Americans now have to come to a fundamental understanding of what they want to do together in future, and what each would prefer to do on their own. There are excellent reasons for us to continue to define as many common goals as possible. Just as in every relationship, however, it also means that we will have to invest something.

A significant step would be to set up a common economic area with a common free trade zone as a core, which, according to the estimations of some experts, could allow the gross national product of Europe and the USA to increase by several - highly valuable - percentage points. But such a free trade area would not only benefit both economies. It would also contribute to a dynamic in which standards and rules to which the U.S. and Europe agree become a sort of blueprint for the entire globe.

Fortunately, this idea, which is not exactly new, has found prominent support and has gained ground in European capitals as well as in Brussels and Washington. President Obama has just expressed his personal support. Such complex projects will only be successful if the negotiations are carried out “top-down” and do not simply get pushed back and forth in the respective bureaucracies. The obstacles are numerous and the stakes high. Let us hope that Obama, Merkel, Barroso etc. will persevere.

Another area that calls for closer cooperation is the U.S. “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific. The transatlantic conversations about potential common goals and policies in that region have been too timid. Europe will not be willing or able to involve itself militarily in Asia in the same way as Washington - nor should it be. But the EU can - and should - have its own clear positions, e.g. on the Chinese-Japanese conflict. From an Asian perspective, Europe barely appears on the radar when it comes to strategic questions. And a division of labor under which we sell expensive cars while the United States works towards strategic stability in Asia will eventually trigger significant transatlantic frictions. There are a number of issues on which we could work together more closely – with respect to promoting democracy or strengthening multilateral structures and organizations, for instance.

When it comes to NATO, there is also a need to act. Of course, we could continue to make speeches reassuring one another on a regular basis that NATO is the most successful alliance of all time. But in the long term this will be insufficient. The decisive question is how we can define the future of NATO together and ensure that it is able to fulfill its purpose. After all, the member states today have quite different ideas about the primary reason for the alliance’s existence.

It is unsettling that the alliance has increasingly developed into a sort of platform for "coalitions of the willing" in which only a certain percentage of members are actually actively involved. The integrated military structure of Nato is unique. But this alone is no guarantee that we can pursue our security interests together and successfully. It must be supported by a strategy, the relevant capabilities, and a minimum amount of solidarity.

Regrettably, over the past few years, European governments have cut their respective defense budgets without considering the bigger European picture. As a result, important military capabilities are being lost; perhaps they could have been retained had there been prior consultation. We need to use pooling and sharing to finally overcome the European ‘small-state’ approach in the area of defense. We could use the European defense budget far more efficiently if we trained and bought together. Such a step towards European self-affirmation would be met with American support.

We should take seriously the warnings of our American partners, which have become clearer and clearer, that the United Statess is simply no longer in a position to bear to main brunt of every crisis. For decades, Europeans have spoken of a two-pillar NATO, of a partnership of equals. This is their chance to actually turn this into reality. From an American perspective, further European integration and a close transatlantic partnership are no longer an either-or proposition. One depends on the other, and vice-versa.

The two new faces of American foreign and security policy, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, are true transatlanticist with intensive connections to Europe. They take a genuine interest in us. Both have been loyal supporters of, and participants in, the Munich Security Conference. For the next generation of Americans, however, the connection to Europe is less and less close to the heart. Opinion surveys have revealed a trend that Europe's importance for the USA is slowly but consistently decreasing. In a Chicago Council survey last year, among those surveyed 58 percent aged 35 and younger said that Asia was more important to the U.S. than Europe.

This should remind us that the close transatlantic partnership is not a self-evident truth. We have always been connected by an unmatched level of economic interdependence, a network of stable institutions, many common interests, and last, but not least, our common identity as liberal Western democracies. In the coming decades these connections will become ever more important: in a world with new powers, Europe and the U.S. will only be able to stand up for their liberal values and interests together. In order to be able to do this, however, we must invest in these bonds between us. Maybe, we should not only be telling each other how important we are to one another, and how much we value each other. We should once again be embarking on inspiring projects together.