Another Christian Martyred in Pakistan (Time.com)

In another chilling message to Pakistani politicians willing to speak out for the rights of suffering minorities, extremists on Wednesday murdered the country's Minister of Minorities. The assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in the ruling cabinet, came just two months after the slaying of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, shot 27 times by his own bodyguard because he had called for changes in a blasphemy law used to persecute religious minorities. Bhatti was killed when gunmen ambushed his vehicle outside his home. And in both cases, the killers gleefully boasted that the same fate awaits anyone else who dares challenge their brutally intolerant brand of Islam.

For Pakistan's Christians, the assassination is a grim reminder of the peril that attaches to merely practicing their faith. "We've been attacked many, many times in our history," says Shimon Gill, a member of the All Pakistan Minority Alliance. "But now we have been orphaned. Who will speak up for us now?" Gill, a campaigner who had worked alongside Bhatti to secure the rights of Pakistan's minorities, says that the minister had long endured threats to his life. Those threats, however, had escalated after Bhatti joined forces with Taseer to speak in defense of Aasia Noreen, a Christian farm laborer sentenced to death under the draconian blasphemy laws. "Bhatti was undaunted," says Gill. "He told us that he was prepared to be martyred for our cause." In his home village, Bhatti's supporters came out on to the streets to torch tyres, beat their chests in protest and denounce his killers. (See pictures of Christians under siege in the Muslim world.)

Militants linked to the Pakistani Taliban are suspected to be behind the assassination. Before the killers sped away in a car, they left pamphlets at the scene, proclaiming that "The only punishment for blasphemy against the Prophet is death". Bhatti's attempts to have Pakistan's blasphemy laws repealed was itself, in the eyes of his killers, an act of blasphemy. The pamphlet says that the assassination was a warning to "infidels" and "apostates". It was signed by "The organization of Al-Qaeda and the Punjabi Taliban," an odd formulation, combining the global jihadist group and the Punjabi branch of the Pakistani Taliban. Some of the language the document used to revere Islam's Prophet, however, is more commonly associated with the milder Barelvi sect, which is followed by the majority of Pakistani Muslims - and is at odds with the more austere Deobandi school of Islam favored by the local Taliban. Mumtaz Qadri, Taseer's confessed assassin, was a Barelvi.

Bhatti had predicted his own death, saying in a recently recorded video, "The forces of violence, militant banned organization, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, want to to impose the radical philosophy in Pakistan. Whoever stands against their radical philosophy, they threaten them." Bhatti insisted he was ready to "die for a cause", adding that he wanted defend the rights of his beleaguered community. "These threats and these warning cannot change my opinion and principles, he said. I would prefer to die for my principles, and for the justice of my community, rather than compromise on these threats." (See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)

In the weeks since Taseer's slaying, Pakistan's government has rushed to distance itself from the more tolerant advocacy associated with the slain governor and with Bhatti. A parade of ministers has repeatedly insisted that the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) - to which both Taseer and Bhatti belonged - would not touch the blasphemy laws. The government had hoped the controversy over the controversial laws would die down. "Clearly the government was wrong," says Ali Dayan Hasan of Human Rights Watch. In the time that has passed, the religious right - composed of disparate and often fractious sects - has forged rare consensus over the issue of blasphemy and taken to the streets of Pakistans cities in tens of thousands. Qadri, Taseer's assassin, has been celebrated as a hero. Banned terror organizations such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the November 2008 Mumbai massacre, have joined them. And for the past month, they have sustained their fury by focusing it on the demand for the execution of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor registered as a diplomat who killed two Pakistanis in January but says he acted in self-defense and who has claimed diplomatic immunity with the support of the U.S. government.

"The government has chosen to pursue a policy of appeasement in order to keep itself in power," laments Hasan of Human Rights Watch. "This policy is misguided and self-defeating. If the last three months are any indication, President Asif Ali Zardari may be the last man standing. The problem is that he wont be standing for very long. If one by one, the people who are supposed to uphold the politics of tolerance remain silent, they will have no viable prospects left." Bhatti's assassins warn in their pamphlet that they will "pick out" others from Zardari's "infidel government" and dispatch them "to hell" in the same manner. (See more about Pakistan's deepening religious divide.)

The assassination also appears to have vanquished any hopes of reclaiming the secular Pakistan envisioned by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. "Jinnah's Pakistan died long ago," says Gill. The tragedy for Pakistan's minorities, adds Hasan, is that many of them don't have the option to leave. "They will have to live here regardless," he says. "The issue is not that they will become second class citizens, because they have been second class citizens for many, many years." (Comment on this story.)

Still, Gill and other Christians remain resolute. "We refuse to be frightened," he says, his voice thick with emotion. "We have lost Bhatti, but we have not lost his philosophy. We are clear. We will continue to fight for our rights. Bhatti's martyrdom will give us the strength to do so."

See TIME's religion covers.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Bangladesh's Microfinance Pioneer Muhammad Yunus Faces a Political Battle to Survive (Time.com)

By SUMON K. CHAKRABARTI / NEW DELHI Sumon K. Chakrabarti / New Delhi – 1 hr 10 mins ago

The clock started ticking for Nobel Peace laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus in 2007. That was the year the celebrated economist and microcredit guru made a brief foray into Bangladeshi politics. Two squabbling political parties have run the country throughout its history, but in 2007 a military caretaker government was in charge. Yunus launched the "Citizens' Power" party, billing itself as a clean, efficient alternative to political unrest. Instead, the move opened the door to political attacks. In March 2007, Awami League politician A.M.A. Muhith told a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor: "The fact that Yunus is being able to carry on political activities when all the other parties are straitjacketed by the state of emergency implies a tacit endorsement by the current regime."

His party never took off. In 2009 elections, the Awami League won national elections, returning its leader, Sheik Hasina, to power and putting Yunus and the Grameen Bank, the microlending bank that he founded in 1983, back under scrutiny. In November 2010, a Norwegian television documentary accused Yunus and Grameen of improperly moving funds donated by the Norwegian government. The Nobel laureate was subsequently vilified in the Bangladeshi media and faced an investigation in Norway. Oslo cleared Yunus and Grameen of any financial impropriety, but the damage was done. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina branded Yunus a "blood-sucker of the poor" and pushed for his removal from the helm of Grameen. Muhith, who is now finance minister, has called for him to "stay away" from the bank. On Wednesday afternoon, the government fired the 70-year-old Yunus from the institution he'd founded. (See pictures of Yunus' career.)

"Muhammad Yunus has been removed from the post of managing director of Grameen Bank," A F M Asaduzzaman, deputy general manager of the country's central bank, told reporters in Dhaka. The central bank declared that Yunus had violated the country's retirement laws by staying on as Grameen's head long past the mandatory retirement age of 60.

But the real drama began an hour later, when Jannat-E-Quanine, the spokesperson for Grameen Bank, stoutly defended its founder, announcing that Yunus will remain in charge and denying that he has violated any laws. The bank said in a statement: "Grameen Bank has been duly complying with all applicable laws. It has also complied with the law in respect of appointment of the Managing Director." A spokesperson for Yunus said he declined to make any further comment about the charges against him. (Watch "10 Questions for Muhammad Yunus.")

But Khondaker Muzammel Huq, the government-appointed chairman of Grameen Bank, told TIME that Yunus had been relieved of his duties for failing to get the mandatory clearance from the central bank when he was appointed managing director in 1999. "In the by-laws of Grameen Bank, it is clearly stated that the managing director should be appointed by the board with the prior approval of the Bangladesh Bank," Huq said. "That was not done. So he has been relinquished of his duties. We have sent a letter accordingly to Grameen bank."

Sheikh Hasina's government, meanwhile, is working overtime to convince the international community that their move was not illegal. On Monday, U.S. Ambassador James F. Moriarty met Muhith to express his concerns. Muhith is expected to meet ambassadors of various countries and representatives of World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank to clarify the government's decision on Yunus today. He told AFP, "We'll deal with it gracefully." (Comment on this story.)

The Friends of Grameen, a group of charities led by former Irish President Mary Robinson, last month alleged that Yunus was being subjected to "politically orchestrated vilification." Yunus, too, has called the charges against him politically motivated in the past. But his widespread support abroad has fueled criticism of him at home as someone caught up in his own fame. "The government seems to be legally right, but this is surely a politically incorrect move, now that some international celebrities, whose credibility you probably cannot question, are campaigning for Muhammad Yunus," says Toufique Imroze Khalidi, editor-in-chief of BDNEWS24. Khalidi says the government's role in helping to start Grameen Bank, in which it holds a small minority stake, has been ignored. "Professor Yunus simply outsmarts the government internationally with his superb PR skills."

The government in Dhaka has also capitalized on a wider disaffection with microfinance. The Grameen bank's micro-credit model is a "death-trap for the poor," says Professor Anu Mohammed, a leading Bangladeshi economist. "Their programs are such that do not reduce but reproduce poverty." Those same criticisms have hit microfinance lenders from Latin America to Africa to India, and Bangladesh is no exception. A five-member review committee on Grameen Bank was constituted on Jan. 11 to conduct a special audit of the bank, focusing on the rates of interest at which it borrows money and then lends to the poor. Defenders of microcredit acknowledge that the model cannot do much to help the poorest of the poor, but says it does serve an important function. As an editorial in the Financial Times put it: "Microfinance may not on its own lift people out of poverty, but it does enhance financial inclusion, letting poor borrowers smooth their incomes so they can cope with illness or other temporary shocks."

Grameen, too, has begun to expand its model beyond just microfinance, into savings programs and "social businesses" that might do more to directly ease poverty. But for now, those efforts will be on hold. Yunus will likely be spending much of his time in court in the coming months, fighting what looks set to be a long legal battle.

Sumon K Chakrabarti is the Chief National Correspondent of CNN-IBN

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

China's Most Secret Weapon: The Messenger Pigeon (Time.com)

Though the world's attention has recently been focused on the unveiling of China's first ever stealth fighter jet, the Chinese military has been busy investing in another type of furtive flyer - the humble messenger pigeon. According to reports in state media, late last year the Chengdu division of the People's Liberation Army began training 10,000 pigeons as part of a push to build a "reserve pigeon army" that would provide support to the military's conventional communications infrastructure in the event that war rendered its plethora of modern technology unusable.

"These military pigeons will be primarily called upon to conduct special military missions between troops stationed at our land borders or ocean borders," air force military expert Chen Hong told China Central Television (CCTV) after the announcement. According to reports, the birds will be dispersed to communications bases across China's remote and mountainous southwestern region, particularly around the Himalayan foothills. The pigeons, flying at speeds of up to 120km per hour, will be trained to carry loads of up to 100 grams. (See TIME's top 10 militant animals.)

The birds have a long history of service in China. Messenger pigeons have been used in China for more than a thousand years, and pigeons have been earning their military stripes here since at least the late 1930s. In 1937, Lieutenant Claire Lee Chennault, a retired U.S. Airforce pilot, arrived in China to head up a group of U.S.-sponsored aviators known as the Flying Tigers, tasked with taking to the air to repel the Japanese invasion of the mainland. He brought with him hundreds of messenger pigeons to help with the war effort, and after the war, left the birds behind. That group of pigeons would form the core of the PLA's first military pigeon brigade.

Today, the pigeons serve alongside 10,000 dogs in PLA service, guarding military warehouses, assisting special police forces and supporting border troops. Two thousand new dogs are reportedly signed up each year. Horses, once an important part of the military operations, have been falling out of fashion, as the PLA cavalry has played an increasingly peripheral role. There are said to be fewer than 1,000 cavalry soldiers left in the PLA, and those mostly take part in exhibitions or movie shoots. (See pictures of animals in space.)

The Chinese army is far from the only one to turn to these winged warriors in times of trouble. Hundreds of pigeons were dropped over Normandy during the D-Day landings to provide a communication channel back to Britain for soldiers who feared their radio messages would be intercepted by the Nazis. The first pigeon to make it back to London with the news that the invasion had been a success was awarded high military honors. Criminals, too, have found pigeons useful: In January, authorities in Colombia apprehended a pigeon that was being used by smugglers to deliver narcotics to their incarcerated compatriots. The over-burdened bird, with cocaine and marijuana strapped to its back, fell out of the sky before crossing the prison walls.

In China, the birds are also used for recreation. Pigeon racing - and pigeon breeding in general - has exploded in popularity among China's upwardly mobile middle classes. In late January at a pigeon auction in Belgium an unnamed Chinese bidder broke the world record price for a single pigeon by paying $200,000 for a pedigree Belgian racing bird, considered the crÈme de la crÈme of the pigeon racing world.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

In Egypt, Democracy Makes Islamism Less Threatening (Time.com)

The erstwhile spokesman of al-Azhar, the Sunni Muslim seminary that serves as Egypt's highest religious authority, sees unfortunate parallels between his institution's experience and that of the clergy during the French Revolution. In short: both took the wrong side.

"Al-Azhar is the most prestigious institution in the Muslim World. It has great credibility as a bastion of Islamic knowledge and tradition," says Mohamed Rifaah, the vast institution's former spokesman. But its image withered under the 30-year regime of now deposed President Hosni Mubarak, who kept the institution on a tight leash. Mubarak exercised the right of his office to appoint the grand sheik of al-Azhar, and the regime controlled the institution's religious message. "This is what made it lose its credibility," says Rifaah. "If you want to be credible, you have to present yourself independently." (See photos of Mubarak, the man who stayed too long.)

As al-Azhar continued to serve its political master by offering scholarly Islamic interpretations opposed to the democratic uprising, Rifaah resigned along with a number of other officials who joined the revolution in their trademark gray overcoats and red caps. Now, the former diplomat believes that Egypt's new political reality offers al-Azhar the chance to reclaim its former international and domestic stature as an Islamic authority by establishing its independence from the regime.

But like all the state institutions under the Mubarak regime's control, al-Azhar's immediate future remains uncertain. And its fate may be part of a larger debate over the place of religion in Egypt's future. That debate includes the role that the country's largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, will play in Egyptian democracy once it implements its recent decision to create a political party. And there's also the question of how a more democratic Egypt will deal with the Brotherhood's violent archnemesis, al-Qaeda, and related extremist groups. Even more basic, Egyptians are asking whether Article II of the constitution, which declares Islam the religion of the state and Islamic law the principal source of legislation, needs to be amended. The sheik of al-Azhar has warned that any changes to Article II would lead to conflict. Others, like prominent human-rights lawyer Ahmed Seif, say it's simply too soon to be having the debate about religion's role. Elections need to come first, he says. Many others say the conversation has started, and there is no turning back.

Mazen Mostafa, a member of Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Party who joined the revolution early on, believes Egyptians are on the cusp of a fundamentally different religious reality. "I think al-Azhar will lose its stature after some time as Egypt turns to more of a secular role. Both Islam and Christianity will diminish," he says. (See how democracy can work in the Middle East.)

Others are less certain. Last Friday, a crowd estimated by some to number over 1 million poured into Tahrir Square to celebrate their revolution and maintain its momentum. One of the keynote speeches was a passionate sermon by Islamic scholar sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, newly returned from exile, who led the midday prayers. Some see al-Qaradawi's return as a sign that Egypt's revolution will open the way for a more Islamist politics. The popular scholar has a large following and a top-ranked al-Jazeera TV show, but he has been criticized by Egypt's Western allies for rationalizing Palestinian terror attacks. Al-Qaradawi supporters, however, insist he is hardly an extremist; the scholar condemned the attacks on Sept. 11, and is consistently at odds with al-Qaeda, having close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and its more moderate views on Islam.

See more about Egypt's pursuit of the corrupt.

In Friday's speech, al-Qaradawi toed a moderate line in harmony with the revolution, calling for the removal of the corrupt remnants of Mubarak's regime, as well as the release of political prisoners. "I call on the Egyptian army to liberate us from the government that Mubarak formed," he said in the televised sermon. But he also urged protesters to have patience with the Egyptian military and urged striking workers to return to work in the interests of the revolution - sentiments far closer to those of the current military rulers than to many of those in the square.

Many analysts and political activists believe that Islamic extremists will lose out as a more democratic Egypt shapes its religious identity. "The new generation, including the Muslim Brothers and those of them who were in Tahrir Square, have hardly any relationship with al-Qaeda - ideologically, in terms of the outlook, and definitely not organizationally," says Walid Kazziha, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo. "I think al-Qaeda perhaps fears that these young Egyptians have stolen the revolution." (See the Facebook rebel who helped kick off the Jan. 25 revolution.)

Of course, there will be Islamists among the winners in Egypt's democratic revolution, but those are more likely to be the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood types. Denouncing the Brotherhood has long been a staple of al-Qaeda propaganda tapes, while a portion of the Egyptian group's website is titled "MB versus Qaeda" and is dedicated to bashing extremists. The Brotherhood recently announced that it will form a political party to contest elections as soon as constitutional amendments make that possible - a move that al-Qaeda would take as proof of its accusations of the Brotherhood's treachery against the Islamist cause, which al-Qaeda sees as irreconcilable with democracy.

Although members of the Brotherhood comprised a small minority of protesters in Tahrir Square, their cooperative and humble approach to working with other groups - never trying to lead, as well as their declared intention to refrain from fielding their own presidential candidate - will help them gain ground. "The Brotherhood is a part of this revolution," says Waleed Shalaby, the group's clean-shaven media consultant. "They didn't lead it or come late to it. The Brotherhood is at its heart, and it's part of its basic fabric."

The approach taken by the Brotherhood undercut efforts by the Mubarak regime to present Egypt's political choice as one between the dictatorship and the Islamists. In Tahrir, thousands of Egyptians who had previously had no contact with the Islamist group gained a positive experience. "People think the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists, but they're not," said Hoor Ahmed Shawky, 17. "They just want fairness and justice."

The plurality that comes with democracy, if it is achieved, could also limit the Brotherhood's popularity, and marginalize the extremist fringes. Although the crowd in Tahrir Square on Friday listened in keen silence to al-Qaradawi's sermon, they represented a greater diversity across lines of age, outlook and social class, cooperating in the interests of establishing a truly democratic arena in which to express themselves. Extremist Islam would only triumph, says al-Azhar's former spokesman Rifaah, if the repression continues. "But if we have a democracy, we will not have a society dominated by one faction or by one religious organization. We will have a balanced society where all trends of thought will be adequately represented."

See TIME's top 10 everything of 2010.

See TIME's special report "The Middle East in Revolt."

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Learn to Love The Revolution (Time.com)

There's no need to panic.

Revolutions are messy affairs. They don't follow the easy logic of middle-school textbooks. Hostilities in the American Revolution broke out a year before the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution was not ratified until nearly seven years after the decisive battle at Yorktown. In two years starting in 1974, Portugal went from neofascism to army rule to something like a communist putsch and then to liberal democracy, where, happily, it has stayed. (Along the way, events in that little country made the end of white rule in South Africa and Rhodesia inevitable. That's another thing about revolutions: their reverberations often surprise.) The Philippines got rid of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 but is still groping toward a system of government that is both effective and democratic. (See TIME's photo-essay "Scenes from the Unrest in Libya.")

In the 10 weeks since demonstrations began in Tunisia, the Arab Middle East has been messiness personified. We have seen the relatively swift and peaceful ouster of the regime in Tunisia; an 18-day standoff marked by peaceful mass protests and sporadic regime resistance before the departure of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt; demonstrations for constitutional reform combatted by deadly force, followed by negotiations in Bahrain; and most recently, the outbreak of violence bordering on civil war in Libya. And this catalog of the Arab world's democratic winter doesn't include the protests elsewhere, against everyone from a classic big man in Yemen to hereditary monarchs in Morocco and Jordan. So what can we learn from the region's revolutions - and those that went before them?

1. Provide, Provide, Provide
The key word for thinking about the Middle East today, says Eugene Rogan, director of the Middle East Center at Oxford University's St. Antony's College, is provision. Faced with the demands of a rapidly growing population of young people increasingly resentful of dynastic rule and increasingly linked to the outside world and one another by technology - and hence (and this is the key point) able to benchmark their situation against those elsewhere - regimes throughout the region have not done enough to provide sufficient jobs, education, housing, dignity. "Failure to provide," says Rogan, "is the most glaring source of tension. That's the constant." (See pictures of the rule of Colonel Gaddafi.)

Just as constant is the baseline demand of the protesters. It is quite simple: in the chant from the streets, Ishaab ureed isqat al-nizam, or "the people want the fall of the regime." But while those seeking reform in the Arab Middle East share much in the way of both grievance and objective, they also have significant differences. A region stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean is not homogeneous. Egypt has more than 80 million people; Bahrain around 1 million. Some nations, like Libya, have abundant oil and gas reserves; others, like Yemen, have little hydrocarbon wealth. (See exclusive photos of the crackdown in Bahrain.)

2. No Two Places Are the Same
No revolution is a perfect analogy for any other. Each nation in the Middle East has been colored in its own way by its history of colonial rule. Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are francophone; Libya has good relations with Italy, its former colonial master; Jordan was once effectively a British protectorate. Egypt receives enormous quantities of U.S. aid, and the leaders of its armed forces have close ties with their counterparts in the Pentagon. That combination gives U.S. interests a salience in Egypt that they do not have in many other nations in the region.

As the revolutions play out, memories, resentments and social fractures specific to each country will shape their outcome. Egypt, for example, was long the natural leader of the Arab world. Humiliated by its decline in standing (this is a nation that once led the nonaligned movement), many Egyptians would doubtless like to see their country regain its place and revive the sense of cultural and political dynamism that elements within their society demonstrated after World War I and again after Gamal Nasser and his colleagues overturned the monarchy in 1952. In no other Arab nation is the desire to retrieve lost stature likely to be so significant. (Comment on this story.)

Elsewhere, religion may shape what happens next. In Bahrain, the crowds have chanted "Not Sunni, not Shi'ite. Bahraini." But in a nation where a Sunni minority and royal family rule over a much poorer Shi'ite majority, sectarian issues could easily muddle demands for constitutional reform. Syria has its own fractures. The Assad family, which has ruled the country since 1970, is from the small Alawite Islamic sect - this in a Sunni-majority nation whose Islamists remember the way the regime bloodily crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s. The government of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen is threatened by two insurgencies - and the armed members of the local affiliate of al-Qaeda. Sudan is split between a Muslim, Arab north (whose members rule the country) and an African, Christian and oil-rich south that has just voted overwhelmingly to secede. Jordan is home to Palestinians who hail from west of the river and those whose origin is in the deserts to the east.

See TIME's special report "The Middle East in Revolt."

See TIME's photo-essay "Mass Demonstrations in Egypt."

Economic issues, too, will manifest themselves in different ways in different places. A detestation of corruption is a constant throughout the states in the region that have seen disturbances, and for good reason. But it is likely to be a particularly significant driver of change in Libya. This is a nation whose small population, mineral wealth, cultural history and proximity to rich European markets should long ago have made it an economic powerhouse like one of the Gulf states, but instead it has become a kleptocracy run for the benefit of Muammar Gaddafi, his family and their supporters.

3. Patience Is a Virtue
Given the variety of social and economic circumstances in the Arab world and the rapid devolution from smiling faces in Tunisia to the awful violence in Libya, there is a natural temptation to fear the worst: to see years of instability stretching ahead for the region, instability that, as the U.S. learned on Sept. 11, 2001, can seep beyond the Middle East's borders. (See 10 autocrats in trouble.)

The wiser counsel, surely, is patience. During the European revolutions of 1989, it was common to look to the Middle East and wonder why it seemed immune to the democratic wave. But if anything has been abundantly proved in the past month, it is that there is no "Arab exception," no iron rule that specifies that the desires that motivate human society anywhere - a right to choose your rulers, a hope that your children will lead better lives than you, a search for prosperity and happiness - are somehow absent from the Middle East. Why on earth should they be?

That does not mean that the postrevolutionary dispensation in the region will be happy everywhere. Though romantics want revolutions to have charismatic leaders, successful ones channel the revolutionary instinct into habits of effective government through institutions that have a degree of popular legitimacy. (Lucky Poland, to have had both a political organization - Solidarity - and a church hierarchy with such legitimacy in 1989.) Where such institutions do not exist, troubles brew. Russia after 1990 was a country with little organized political opposition and a compromised church and army. Little wonder that oligarchs, criminals and veterans of the Soviet security services rushed to fill the vacuum. (See a brief history of People Power.)

4. Institutions Really Matter
Institutional arrangements are important in the middle East precisely because of the nature of the revolutionary transformation. Organized and brave the young people who have driven change may be, but a crowd in Tahrir Square cannot govern Egypt, nor can a Facebook page or Twitter account - at least not yet. More is needed. Though they may have been hobbled by years of autocracy, Egypt and Tunisia have parliaments, political parties, judges and lawyers, labor unions and a press whose members want to do what free journalists do elsewhere. All of that augurs well for the chance of building systems of governance that are both effective and - just as important - accountable to the people.

The contrast with Libya and Yemen could hardly be more striking. In Gaddafi's madness, Libya has been rendered almost devoid of the appurtenances of state power. (It is officially a Jamahiriya, or "state of the masses.") Yemen has been a unified state only since 1990; poverty-ridden and threatened by regional uprisings, it could face a rocky postrevolutionary trajectory. (See pictures of clashes in Yemen.)

5. Let Them Do It Themselves
Yet even Libya and Yemen have one great thing going for them. When change happens in rough parts of the world, it is easy for those who live in happier lands - such as the U.S. and Europe - to ask condescendingly what they can do to help. And help they surely can - Europe perhaps more than the U.S., since it controls the vital spigots that modulate the flow of people and goods from the Middle East to its most proximate and important market.

But the key thing about the Arab revolution - the reason we can dream that even Libya may turn out fine - is that Arabs are doing it for themselves. This revolution is a regional one, a movement in which each nation's young people have learned tactics, technological fixes and slogans from one another. A local TV channel - al-Jazeera, not the BBC or CNN - has been a principal megaphone. The unplanned system of mutual support that has developed may turn out to have done more to bind the region together than the top-down attempts to create pan-Arabism in the 1950s. This year, says Rogan, "Arabs have been inspired by the example of fellow Arabs. What matters in the Arab world matters to Arabs." For that reason, it matters to us all.

This article originally appeared in the March 7, 2011 issue of TIME.

See the top 10 world news stories of 2010.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Libya's War of the Colonels: Col. Gaddafi Meet Col. Hussein (Time.com)

At a former Army Air Defense base in a darkened, partially constructed neighborhood of Benghazi, Colonel Tarek Saad Hussein is readying the revolutionary forces for the ultimate battle. Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi will likely fight to the death in order to keep control of his capital Tripoli, according to soldiers and revolutionary activists alike. But the banners in front of Benghazi's High Court read: "Libya, one body. Tripoli, our heart." The east is now under opposition control, but Libya will not split, they say: the revolution is not over until Tripoli is won and a dictator is toppled.

The liberation of Tripoli has become the battle cry in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city. "We will never abandon Tripoli," shouted the Imam who led Friday's open-air noon prayer. In response, a chorus of "God is Great!" rose from the thousands who had gathered beneath the stormy Mediterranean skies to pray. (See Yuri Kozyrev's photographs from the liberated city of Benghazi.)

For Colonel Hussein, who sits in a stark office within a darkened base equipped with anti-aircraft guns, Libya's revolution is still very much a people's revolution. But the military that has defected to the opposition - more than 10,000 troops from Benghazi to the Egyptian border, he says - now have an important task at hand. "We are trying to collect as many as we can from Benghazi and other towns in order to prepare a force to march on Tripoli," he says.

Hussein is coordinating with other military officers, tribal sheikhs, and volunteers across the region, he says, to launch the final battle that many believe may be necessary to topple the 41-year-old dictatorship. Already, Hussein says 2,000 armed volunteers, soldiers and reservists have reached the capital in small groups, the last group arriving on Friday night. Soon, he says, there will be more.

But it's not a military coup, he cautions. "It's a youth uprising," he insists. "The fight is between the young people and the regime." It wasn't until Gaddafi met their peaceful demonstrations with violent force "killing them in cold blood," that it was time to intervene, he says. "They are the ones who started the revolution and we are completing it." (See an account of the mayhem in Gaddafi's Tripoli.)

And inevitably, the military will have a big role to play in the aftermath of Gaddafi's fall. "We hope to have a democratic state, not a military state," Hussein says. "We are fed up with a military state. The military is only for protecting the nation - not for ruling it."

But to get there, the revolutionary forces will most certainly have to capture the capital, which means getting past the Gaddafi stronghold of Sert, and past the superior weaponry of Gaddafi's loyalist forces and mercenaries in Tripoli itself. In recent days, Hussein has been placing calls to military officers and residents in Sert, which stands in between Benghazi and Tripoli. "We don't want to treat them as they were treated before," he says, meaning inhumanely. "And we don't want to behave like killers. So we made an appeal, as a warning, to allow us to move freely toward Tripoli."

In the past week, the eastern revolutionaries say, Gaddafi has been losing control of his country, one piece at a time. His forces, diplomats, ministers, and bureaucrats have fallen away. There is unity among the rebels, he says, as well as increasing determination to reach the end game. "We are preparing ourselves, and we will march to Tripoli to bombard Bab Bin Gashin," Hussein says, referring to Gaddafi's Tripoli stronghold where he believes the ruler is hiding. "We have planes and pilots who were assigned by Gaddafi to bomb Benghazi, but who refused and landed here safely. We have pilots who are ready to crash their planes in a suicidal way if necessary." (Will Gaddafi fall or fight back?)

Is the ultimate plan to kill Gaddafi, as many eager revolutionaries along the Mediterranean coast say? Hussein peers up over his rectangular reading glasses and offers a wry smile: "We hope to catch him alive."

On Friday evening, Gaddafi delivered another defiant speech before a crowd of supporters in Tripoli. He vowed to "open up the arsenals" and to defeat his opposition. But Hussein didn't have time to see it because he was too busy planning the days ahead. "This isn't a football match," he says. And he's not afraid of the man in Tripoli.

No one expects Gaddafi to go quietly. His remaining forces are well-equipped, and his son Khamees' battalion includes an estimated 3,000 troops, about half of whom are mercenaries, Hussein says. On Thursday, Libya's now ex-Justice Minister Mustafa Mohamed Abd el-Jalil told al-Jazeera that he believes Gaddafi has chemical and nuclear weapons. Hussein isn't worried. "There are no nuclear weapons," he says dismissively. And Gaddafi's once fearsome stock of chemical weapons? "All that stuff was handed over during the Lockerbie deal," says Hussein, referring to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over the Scottish town and the controversial 2009 decision to repatriate a Libyan sentenced for the crime from a prison in Scotland. "He thought that by buying American support at the time, they would let him stay in power forever."

Hussein chuckles. "He forgot about the Libyan people."

See TIME's Top 10 Everything of 2010.

See TIME's special report "The Middle East in Revolt."

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Scientists Try to Solve Amelia Earhart Mystery Through Her Saliva (Time.com)

Scientists are attempting to create a genetic profile for Amelia Earhart through her saliva - taken from letter seals - to determine if a bone fragment found in 2009 does belong to the missing aviator.
In July 1937, Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, vanished over the Pacific Ocean. Using the Equator, they were attempting to fly around the world, one of the longest routes around the Earth. She was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. (See 10 famous disappearances.)
About two years ago, researchers found a bone fragment on the South Pacific island of Nikumaroro. They believe it might have came from one of Earhart's fingers, but there has been no surefire way to prove if it belonged to her or even possibly another animal. (Read about the bone sliver found in the Pacific Ocean.)
All possible traces of Earhart's DNA, on clothing or locks of hair, have long since dried up or is considered unreliable. Instead scientists are relying on personal letters to family that Earhart would most have likely written herself. And they're in luck: during that time, most people used letter openers from the side so the original seals remain intact. (See more on Hollywood's biopic on the aviator.)
The project will compare DNA from the samples against her living relatives to determine if it's a match. It's expected to take a few months to build a profile. If it succeeds, either the mystery of Amelia Earhart will be unraveled - or the hunt will be still on for what actually happened to Amelia.
View this article on Time.com
Most Popular on Time.com:
View the original article here

New Zealand Miracle: Woman Saved After Spending 27 Hours Under Earthquake Rubble (Time.com)

New Zealand rescuers pulled out a woman alive who had been trapped in rubble for over 24 hours after a massive 6.3 Christchurch earthquake left at least 75 people dead on Tuesday. (Read more about the intial reports from the disaster.)
Ann Bodkin was rescued from the collapsed Pyne Gould Corporation building in the early afternoon, approximately 27 hours after the earthquake struck the city. She had been trapped under her desk, and luckily, had no injuries.
Originally, rescuers thought Bodkin was another victim, an Australian woman named Ann Voss, who has been in contact with people under the rubble on her cell phone. Voss, however, has not been found. Approximately 300 people remain missing on Wednesday as rescuers continue their work. (Read about more about the recent Christchurch earthquake.)
It took three hours for rescuers to reach Bodkin through the debris of the four-story building, guided by her tapping through a wall. Her husband was waiting next to the debris when they managed to pull her out. "I was told to get myself down here because she was asking for me. I didn't break any speed limits but I got here pretty quickly," he told Shepparton News. (See pictures of the earthquake damage in Christchurch.)
Yesterday's earthquake comes close on the heels of another major quake in Christchurch on New Zealand's South Island just five months ago. Though that earthquake, which struck near dawn in September, was stronger, no one was killed; the high number of fatalities in this week's unfolding tragedy have been attributed to the fact that it occurred in the late morning on a weekday.
The September earthquake is estimated to have caused over $3 billion in damages. There is no official figure yet about the cost of this week's disaster, but New Zealand Prime Minister's estimates that it will be at least another $3 billion in damages, while Australian companies are estimating the final tally will be closer to $12 billion. (See pictures of the damage from the September 2010 Christchurch earthquake.)
New Zealand's deadliest earthquake was the Hawke's Bay earthquake in 1931. The magnitude 7.8 earthquake killed 256 people on the nation's North Island. The more recent Christchurch earthquake happened along a fault line that was previously unknown until recently.
View this article on Time.com
Most Popular on Time.com:
View the original article here

How To Stage A DIY Mass Protest (Time.com)

Editor's Note: The following is a guest post by Conor Friedersdorf.

No matter if you're aiming to overthrow your government, or to simply shame your local state legislature, some best-practices for a D.I.Y. revolution have emerged of late. Egypt's Uprising: Complete Coverage"

As Egyptians revolted, Malcolm Gladwell argued in The New Yorker that the least interesting aspect of their efforts were what new media tools dissenters used. "People protested and brought down governments before Facebook was invented," he wrote. "Barely anyone in East Germany in the nineteen-eighties had a phone."

Grant him this: technology hasn't changed everything. It confers certain advantages, has significant limits, and is exploited by the savvy organizer as one more tool to be used when appropriate. So how to combine hi-tech and low-tech to organize a safe and successful mass uprising? Herein, some handy tips.

Step 1. DEVELOP A STRATEGY

There's nothing more basic than formulating a plan of attack, whether with an iPad, a pad and pen, or a stick in the dirt. Ask Gene Sharp, an 83-year-old orchid enthusiast so low-tech that he doesn't even use computers. But his pamphlet From Dictatorship To Democracy, "a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats," is available for download in 24 languages. And it's been used by dissidents in Burma, Bosnia, Estonia, Zimbabwe, Tunisia and Egypt. Score one for hyperlinks and downloadable PDFs. (See TIME's Exclusive Photos: Turmoil in Egypt)

Pro tip: Someone has already orchestrated a protest like the one you want to throw. Use Google to find articles about that event, note the name of the organizer, and try to track down his or her email address to ask for advice. Once you've set a strategy, disseminate those plans to as wide an audience as possible. Upload documents to social publishing sites such as Docstoc.com or Scribd.com for easy viewing and sharing across all platforms and devices.

Step 2. DON'T OVERLOOK OLD MEDIA

Hi-tech is useful if you're trying to reach strangers while sidestepping state run media, as Twitter dissidents did in Iran. Or to organize a walkout among high school students, as happened in Newark, New Jersey: when every last person you're trying to reach belongs to the same Facebook network, use that.

But low-tech mass media remains the most effective way to assemble a large crowd of strangers in a free country. Glenn Beck summoned tens of thousands to his "Restoring Honor" event via Fox News, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert used Comedy Central to publicize their own response rally, Tea Partiers asked local AM radio hosts to help publicize their regional events, and a 2006 immigration rally in Los Angeles drew the biggest crowd of all: 500,000 people took to the streets thanks in large part to deejay Eddie Sotelo and his counterparts in Spanish language radio.

Pro tip: Facebook is best used to communicate with an existing coalition - it's hard to talk with folks who don't already count you as a "friend" or "like" your cause. Whereas Twitter is better for more freewheeling interactions that unfold in real time - just remember to settle on a hashtag that's appended to every tweet.

Step 3. BRING THE PROTEST INTO PEOPLES' HOMES

Pitted against heavily armed security forces, the people of Bahrain turned to their camera phones: "By uploading images of this week's violence in Manama, the capital, to Web sites like YouTube and yFrog, and then sharing them on Facebook and Twitter, the protesters upstaged government accounts and drew worldwide attention to their demands," The New York Times reports. "A novelty less than a decade ago, the cellphone camera has become a vital tool to document the government response to the unrest that has spread through the Middle East and North Africa." But what if you're not facing inherently newsworthy abuses? (See TIME's photogallery "Mass Demonstrations in Egypt.")

The lowest tech way to get press is getting naked. The cameras show up every year in Venice, California when bare-chested women and men clad in bikini tops protest the local prohibition on topless sunbathing. How many people are needed to get an anti-war protest newspaper coverage? Only one if she's nude, on top of a car, performing a yoga pose (downward dove?). Environmental activists were able to persuade 600 people to bare all atop this glacier to draw attention to climate change. And last year various Americans and Germans took off all their clothes to protest airport scanners... that peek beneath clothing.

Pro tip: The proliferation of camera-equipped smartphones makes capturing images from your protest easy. For even more dramatic shots, USB Fever sells wide-angle lenses that can be attached to your cell phone via magnet. And an Eye-Fi memory card will automatically upload images via Wi-Fi to your computer - or directly to Flickr or Facebook. If you're expecting water-cannons or overly-aggressive officers, opt for a super-tough and waterproof camera such as the Casio Ex-G1, and perhaps an indestructible laptop such as Panasonic's Toughbook 31.

Step 4. BE ONE STEP AHEAD OF THE LAW

Cheap digital video cameras are handy for documenting police abuses for later litigation. But be careful with that particular gadget. It can capture illegal or unseemly behavior on your own side. And in some jurisdictions, recording audio can get you arrested on illegal surveillance charges - what's needed is a lower-tech camera that captures images, but not sound.

Of course, even low-tech tools can get you into trouble. In Providence, Rhode Island, you'll need prior permission if you want to shout through a bullhorn. Sometimes the most important technology is the pen used to fill out a permit.

Pro tip: If your cell phone doesn't take video, a cheap, compact option is the Flip Ultra HD, a popular choice among journalists.

Step. 5 DON'T BREAK FOR LUNCH

Unless you're embarking on a hunger strike, it's a losing proposition to pit famished, fatigued protesters against well-fed authorities taking shifts. The hi-tech solution: take to the streets with a camel-back full of electrolytes and a supply of MREs. Extreme situations might even justify Dexedrine.

An old-fashioned approach to meals can have its perils. During the San Francisco dockworker strike of 1934, amid a pitched battle between longshoremen and riot police, there was a peculiar pause in the action. "As if a work whistle had blown, each side withdrew for a midday break," writes Kevin Starr, California's official state historian. "Toward one o'clock Harry Bridges was eating at a union dining hall at the corner of the Embarcadero and Mission Street... Suddenly shots rang out, followed by yelling and screams. Looking outside, Bridges could see the police driving back his men with clubs and gunfire. During the lull of the lunch hour, the police had regrouped themselves into two phalanxes, one to the north of the strikers' headquarters, the other to the south."

Pro tip: Pack plenty of wanter. The CamelBak mule holds 100 ounces. (Good news, anarchists and communists: it comes in black or red.) In case potable water is scarce, equip your protest kit with an ultraportable SteriPEN water purifier. And if you find yourself becoming overagitated - never a good idea during a mass protest - calm yourself with Breathing Zone, a handy iPhone app that'll help keep the typical stress of fomenting unrest somewhat in check.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Liberated from Gaddafi, Eastern Libya Looks to the Future (Time.com)

Tobruk is about an hour and a half from Libya's border with Egypt, a drive through flat, sparsely populated scrubland along the Mediteranean coast. The communities along the route are scattered and sparsely populated in low, rectangular block buildings, many painted a decaying, sand-battered white with green doors and shutters. As darkness settles over Libya on Tuesday, the towns almost disappear into pitch black darkness, with electricity limited, despite many power lines. Sporadic lakes of sewage break up fields of garbage. "You see how Libyans are living here," says my guide, Emat al-Maijri, an activist, pointing to the buildings. "And with all this oil!"

But the men of Tobruk are proud to have been among the first to push Gaddafi's regime out of their city. There were only three or four fatalities here, with about 50 injured, residents say. That's because Tobruk, in Libya's far east, fell fast. It was part of the domino collapse of Libya's eastern towns - the first to fall to the anti-government protesters. "All of Libya is against Qaddafi," says Gamal Shallouf, a marine biologist turned activist here in Tobruk. But he says the east was the first to fall because it has long felt neglected by a ruler who focused development projects on the capital and his home town of Sert. People here also feel a closeness to Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and the site of past uprisings in the country's history. "Maybe because Benghazi started it and so we supported Benghazi. After just two days, every town was burning. Gaddafi never cared about eastern Libya. He doesn't care about Libya at all, just his own city, Sert." (See "The Rule of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi")

Tawfik al-Shohiby, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Tobrouk says Benghazi lies at the uprising's epicenter because it was the site of regime brutality in 2006. Feb. 17 was the date of protest announced on Facebook, he says. But they chose the date for a reason. "You know this date in 2006 - 14 people were killed outside the Italian consulate in Benghazi. They were out protesting against the cartoons of [the Prophet] Muhammad. They were protesting and the police killed them. The first one who died was a child." He adds, "This was our first opportunity to say 'No' to a dictator."

But what are Libyans going to do if and when they rid themselves of Gaddafi? For one, the activists in Tobruk feel a lot more fighting has yet to take place. Sert, parts of Tripoli, and the south are believed to be under Gaddafi loyalist control still; and there are still reports of intense fighting between hired mercenaries and residents. There are reports of labor strikes on oil fields in Misla and Nafoora. But people on the border and in Tobruk say confidence is rising in the east of the country where the country is under control of "the people." (See TIME's Exclusive Photos: Turmoil in Egypt)

But are the people really united? In their speeches, both Muammar Gaddafi and his son (and assumed heir) Saif warned that Libya's tribalism would tear the country apart without their dynasty's firm rule. "Libya is not Egypt or Tunisia," the son warned again and again on Sunday night. But the residents of Tobruk say the Gaddafis created the tribalism. Says Shallouf the marine biologist: "Gaddafi made the tribes here. He made it tribal. After Gaddafi brought down our king, he established governance at the tribal level. He thought it was a good idea. But it was a devilish idea. He created tribal governments. He supported some not others. But we didn't feel this was right. We now feel we have only one family - the Libyan family."

Still, even the activiss wanted only so much change. Libya, they explan, is more traditional than its neighbors Tunisia and Egypt. They say they want to see a new government that preserves Libyan culture; they don't want democracy imported from elsewhere. Shaiby says: "I have one soul. I will give it for this revolution. Not just for money. But for freedom. We want freedom, but democracy that fits with our culture. Not just any democracy. One that respects our religion. Libya is 100% Muslim and Sunni, and 100% original Libyan. So we need to make our own democracy. We need support from outside - the US and U.K. - but not to tell us what to do. We just want advice."

Shallouf wants to see a government that gives back to its people. Many others echo the complaint that the people don't see enough of Libya's oil revenues. "We have so much money but our government makes business in Africa for Gaddafi and his sons only," says Shallouf. "I am the manager of a marine biology research center. Do you know how much the government gives me a month? Only $300. I have just one child, a girl. If I had another, I don't know what I would do." (Egypt's Uprising: Complete Coverage)

Shallouf complains that European and U.S. companies have their hands too deep in Libya's oil. "OK," he says, "we respect all deals, but I think the money from the oil should be for us and the oil should be for us. It should go toward development. Libya needs human development. Gaddafi broke [the] sciences here, and health. And he broke the police. They made us hopeless. So that we need all kinds of development."

Shaiby doesn't think that the current crisis will devastate Libya's oil economy as the Gaddafis have threatened. "Every company and country wants to work in Libya," he says. "After Gaddafi is down and the situation is better, it will be better than good." Shallouf agrees, "We trust that foreign people in all countries hate Gaddafi and don't trust him because he's crazy and has made many troubles in the world with our money."

(See TIME's photogallery "Mass Demonstrations in Egypt.")

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Fraud Scandal Hits China's Online Giant Alibaba (Time.com)

A fraud scandal at Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba.com is a sharp blow to a business built on faith in online transactions. On Monday the business-to-business site's CEO David Wei and COO Elvis Lee resigned, according to a statement filed with the Hong Kong stock exchange. While the two executives were not linked to the fraud allegations, they stepped down to "take responsibility for the systemic break-down in our company's culture of integrity," according to the statement. On Tuesday, the company's shares dropped 8.6% in Hong Kong.

An internal investigation by independent board member Savio Kwan revealed that Alibaba.com noticed an increase in fraud claims beginning in late 2009 against sellers designated as "gold suppliers," which means they had been vetted by an independent party as legitimate merchants. The investigation revealed that about 100 Alibaba.com sales people, out of a staff of 5,000, were responsible for letting fraudulent entities evade regular verification measures and establish online storefronts.

The company said that it uncovered fraudulent transactions by 1,219 of the "gold suppliers" registered in 2009 and 1,107 of those in 2010, accounting for about 1% of the total number of those years' gold suppliers. Alibaba said "the vast majority of these storefronts were set up to intentionally defraud global buyers," by advertising consumer electronics at cheap prices with low minimum order requirements. The average claim against fraudulent suppliers was less than $1,200.

On Monday Alibaba founder Jack Ma emphasized the importance of integrity of both the company's staff and its online marketplaces. "We must send a strong message that it is unacceptable to compromise our culture and values," he said, according to the company statement. A former English teacher, Ma expanded Alibaba into a global leader in online commerce. He is one of China's most admired technology entrepreneurs, and in 2009 was named to the TIME 100. He now heads Alibaba Group, which includes Alibaba.com, consumer retail site Taobao.com and Alipay, a Chinese online payment system like PayPal. Alibaba.com is partly owned by Yahoo, though Ma has tried unsuccessfully to buy out that stake. Jonathan Lu, the CEO of Taobao, was named as the new head of Alibaba.com, a job he will hold concurrently with his position at Taobao. (See the 2009 TIME 100.)

In November 2010 Alibaba reported that it had more than 56 million members and had earned more than $570 million over the first three quarters of the year, a 30% increase over 2009. Alibaba said that the frauds had "not had a material financial impact" on the company. But the damage to the company's reputation may have a more lasting significance.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

See the Cartoons of the Week.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Mexico: Drug-War Tensions Rise with U.S. Agent's Killing (Time.com)

The dreaded phone call came in at the U.S. embassy during a baking-hot Mexico City afternoon on Feb. 15. Special agent Victor Avila reported that he and his partner were under attack after a dozen gunmen surrounded them on a central Mexican highway; both agents had taken hits, and Avila was watching scores of other shells bounce off their armor-plated Suburban. It was this cry for help that saved Avila's life. American officials contacted their drug-war allies in the Mexican federal police, who swept the area, making the gunmen flee, and airlifted the agents to a hospital. Avila survived after two bullets were removed from his legs. But his colleague Jaime Zapata died from his wounds and is due to be buried with honors Wednesday in his native Brownsville, Texas - both Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are expected to attend the funeral.

President Obama personally called Zapata's family to offer his condolences, which underscored the grim milestone. Zapata's killing marks the first murder of an American agent in the line of duty in Mexico's drug war, which has raged relentlessly since President Felipe CalderÓn took office in December 2006 and declared an unprecedented attack on cartels. As such, it adds extra pressure to the already strained U.S.-Mexico drug-war alliance. (See pictures of Mexico's drug tunnels.)

Publicly, the CalderÓn and Obama administrations have continued to paint a rosy picture of the U.S. and Mexico marching side by side to defeat the common adversary of drug cartels. But as revealed in WikiLeaks cables and offhand comments by officials on both sides of the border, tensions are growing. U.S. officials complain that they cannot completely rely on Mexico's institutions - and this concern is exacerbated when their lives are on the line. For their part, Mexicans protest that they suffer from failed American policies on drugs and guns. The Obama Administration's recent refusal to fast-track new reporting requirements for assault-weapon sales along the Mexican border only added to their frustration.

The Mexican complaint that they have unfairly borne the brunt of the war is shown in cruel numbers. In the four years of conflict, gangsters have killed more than 2,000 officers of Mexico's security forces, including members of its military, federal and local police. As tragic as it is, the single death of an American agent pales in comparison. Politicians of various stripes have commented that Mexico supplies the dead while the U.S. supplies the dollars. And it is not even that much money. Obama's proposed drug-war aid in the 2012 budget was lower than expected at $334 million - compared with Mexico's own federal security budget of some $14 billion per year. Meanwhile, American drug users provide the cartels with an estimated $30 billion in revenues. (See pictures of a Mexican drug gang's "holy war.")

However, such disparities offer little comfort to agents on the ground such as Avila and Zapata, who worked for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Under Mexican law, they are not allowed to carry guns - meanwhile, cartel hit squads have an endless supply of automatic rifles (usually bought in American stores). Their (supposed to be) best defense is that if gangsters attack Americans, they will bear the brunt of U.S. efforts to hunt them down. Napolitano raised the flag for a massive response within hours of Zapata's murder. "Let me be clear: any act of violence against our ICE personnel," she said, "is an attack against all those who serve our nation and put their lives at risk for our safety."

The tough talk masks the fear that Mexican drug gangs, who have radicalized amid the conflict to use car bombs and directly attack civilians, no longer respect the wrath of Uncle Sam. The gunmen shot Zapata and Avila despite the fact that their car had diplomatic plates. Furthermore, according to details of the incident described by officials, they warned the attackers they were American agents, to which an attacker replied in Spanish, "I don't give a f___." (See pictures of Culiac[a {a}]n, the home of Mexico's drug-trafficking industry.)

The identities and motives of the attackers remain unclear. The agents had met colleagues in the state of San Luis PotosÍ to drop off communications equipment before they came under attack on the drive home to Mexico City. It is still uncertain exactly what they were investigating. ICE uses undercover work, paid informants and other techniques to sting all kinds of cross-border menaces, from human smugglers to sex tourists, as well as working together with - and sometimes stepping on the toes of - the Drug Enforcement Administration. Any such probes could anger Mexico's cartels, which now run a portfolio of crimes. Gangsters could also just have been trying to carjack the Suburban truck for their operations - an increasingly common occurrence on Mexican roads. Officials have mentioned the Zetas gang as suspects, since they are strong in the area, although they have said it is too early to be sure.

If the agents were deliberately targeted, the inevitable suspicion is that someone passed information of their movements to the cartels. In recent years, dozens of Mexican officials have been arrested for leaking data to gangsters. "There could be many ways of tracking the agents, including bugging their phones. But the suspicion of traitors is bound to be there," says David Shirk of the University of San Diego's Trans-Border Institute. A distrust of Mexican security institutions was also highlighted by WikiLeaks. In one cable dating from December 2009, U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual complained the army had deliberately failed to move on American information about a wanted trafficker. In another cable, John Feeley, the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. embassy in Mexico City, wrote a scathing assessment of the Mexican armed forces, saying they were "incapable of processing information and evidence." (Comment on this story.)

But perhaps the biggest pressure on the drug-war alliance is its failure to stop violence. After four years of record-breaking busts and the shooting or arrests of a dozen kingpins, the bloodshed has sunk to new depths. The same week as the murder of Zapata saw a single massacre of 18 victims and a grenade attack on shoppers. Between Feb. 17 and Feb. 19 alone, there were a stunning 51 murders in the border city of Ciudad JuÁrez, the worst rate in recent memory. In total there have been more than 35,000 killings in Mexico's drug war, including gangsters, security forces and civilians. But now that an American law-enforcement agent has become one of the casualties, Washington may re-examine the rationale of a war that many observers believe is only further inflamed by the attacks on the cartels.

See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.

Watch TIME's video "Seeking a Safe Place in Drug-Embattled Ju[a {a}]rez."

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

Hey, Chicago, Say Hello to Your Next F#@*ing Mayor (Time.com)

On a recent Saturday morning, a middle-aged man worked the produce and deli sections of a South Side Chicago supermarket, ambling past signs touting a half-pound of honey ham for $2.49 and a bulletin board with photos of three teen runaways. In tan chinos, a sports shirt and a well-worn brown leather jacket, he walked up to the African-American shoppers and employees with brisk efficiency, engaged in amiable but brief chats, then turned and headed down the bread aisle, a universe away from the West Wing meeting he'd have been in were it not for a career decision unprecedented in political annals.
"Rahm Emanuel, running for mayor" he said, thrusting out his hand to Chiquita Robinson, 48, a deli clerk who didn't need the introduction. "I'm gonna vote for you," she said, later explaining her preference: "Obama asked him to work for him. He's from Chicago. He's really involved in things, knows a lot of people and will be great." (Watch TIME's video "Chicago Votes for a New 'Boss'.")
He doesn't shout, doesn't curse, doesn't tell anybody they're stupid or wrong. For the moment, at least, that vividly profane side of Barack Obama's former chief of staff has been replaced by a disciplined campaigner with some overwhelming advantages: a national profile, a prodigious Rolodex, shock-and-awe fundraising, a triathlete's stamina and a hit man's resolve—plus, of course, the reflected glow of the President of the United States, himself a hometown hero. All of which is upending conventional wisdom about the city's Feb.?22 mayoral election, in which Emanuel is the clear front runner. The change in leadership comes at a perilous moment. The next mayor could either reinstate Chicago's status as a world-class city, or leave it another postrecession victim.
Chicago politics being a blood sport, front-runnerdom has made the slim Emanuel a fat target. Critics wonder if a man known for dropping F bombs like a B-52 has the temperament to be mayor. Emanuel's prime rival raises daily the threat of a "Rahm tax" on services from gym memberships to haircuts. The cops and firefighters pointedly are not endorsing him. People are still muttering about the more than $18 million he earned in less than three years as an investment banker after he left the Clinton White House. And Emanuel had to summon every ounce of his finite patience to endure nearly 12 consecutive hours of public interrogation over whether he even qualifies to be on the ballot as a legal city resident. (He does, according to the state's supreme court.) (See pictures of Rahm Emanuel running for mayor of Chicago.)
In this odd adventure, Emanuel, 51, is something of a trailblazer: there are 17 living former presidential chiefs of staff, yet none have departed the White House for anything quite so humble as a bid for municipal office. James Jones, an Oklahoman who held the job under Lyndon Johnson, went on to serve a few terms in Congress; Dick Cheney, who staffed Gerald Ford, represented Wyoming in the House; and Erskine Bowles, who steered Bill Clinton through the Lewinsky saga, lost two U.S. Senate bids from North Carolina. But it's something different to walk away from Situation Room crisis meetings, visits to foreign capitals, high-stakes budget negotiations and the Sunday-morning talk-show circuit for a rough-and-tumble world in which speedy garbage pickup can make you a hero and unplowed snow can ruin you.
And we're not talking about just any White House chief of staff. We're talking about Rahm, among the most famous and influential occupants the job has seen in years. A man who helped elect Clinton and to shape his White House, then won a hard-fought North Side congressional seat from which he, in turn, recruited and advised the candidates who restored a Democratic House majority in 2006. A man who mused about becoming the first Jewish Speaker of the House, before leaving Congress to work beside America's first black President. And yet here he is this morning at a strip mall in a black working-class neighborhood, fist bumping little kids as surprised shoppers snap cell-phone pictures. The candidate is warm, if not effusive, good with eye contact, then exiting conversations to quickly corral another shopper as if he were a hustling parking-lot attendant paid per car. Emanuel is a decisive man, and he is campaigning in the pursuit of a decisive win on Feb. 22—not just a victory but one big enough to avoid a runoff election.
See Twelve for '12: A Dozen Republicans Who Could Be The Next President.
View the original article here

Gaddafi's Son: The Dynasty Goes to the Ramparts (Time.com)

After the bloodiest weekend in Libya's modern history - in which about 200 people are estimated to have been killed in clashes with security forces - the son of the country's leader Muammar Gaddafi told Libyans on state-run television that "rivers of blood" would flow with "thousands" of deaths if the uprising does not stop, while at the same time also promising a dialogue on new political freedoms and even a new constitution - the most drastic reforms Libya would undertake since Gaddafi seized power 41 years ago. "There is a plot against Libya," said the maverick leader's second son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, long regarded as Gaddafi's heir apparent, speaking after midnight, against a white backdrop showing an abstract map of the region. "The story is very dangerous," he said, wearing a suit and tie - a conscious break from his father's iconic tribal robes. "It is bigger than the Libyans and the young people in the streets, who are trying to imitate Tunisia and Egypt."
Despite a rambling speech of about 40 minutes, Saif did not explain the most urgent question gripping Libyans late on Sunday night: Where is Gaddafi himself? Rumors swirled around Tripoli late Sunday that Gaddafi - whose titles are Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution - might have fled the capital, if not the country, as eastern Libya descended into chaos and massacres. Gaddafi was last seen riding atop a truck in Tripoli on Friday during rallies to support him, in which crowds appeared to celebrate his leadership with posters and chants.(See how the bloodshed proves Gaddafi's strong hand.)
Appearing alone, Saif appeared to be speaking on behalf of Libya's government, although he himself has no official role in it. The second son of the autocratic colonel who has ruled the country for more than four decades, Saif has been seen as the reformist hope of the country, in contrast to his brother Motassem, Libya's national security advisor. But the speech he gave indicated that he was defending the dynasty's claim as the only guarantor of Libya's future and prosperity, hardly the fount of democracy he seemed to embody in an interview with TIME a year ago. Meanwhile, the cracks in the regime are mounting. Libya's permanent representative to the Arab League as well as its ambassador to New Delhi both quit yesterday, according to news reports. While Saif's talk was tough, his speech was unscripted and unfocused, which some might interpret as a sign of great strain.
The diplomatic corps defections as well as the speech may also represent Saif's attempt to win a far more intimate battle - the struggle for succession of his father's rule, against his brother Motassem, a key player in the security crackdown against the protests. "Saif al-Islam is likely seizing the opportunity to leverage himself in this power struggle," said the private intelligence company Stratfor in a written analysis after the late-night speech.
With an almost total news blackout, and cellphone and Internet connections severely disrupted, video uploads and text messages over the weekend reported spectacular clashes in Libya's second-biggest city Benghazi and several other cities in eastern Libya, including large-scale massacres in Benghazi and al-Baida on Sunday, some during funeral processions for those shot by snipers and regular security forces. Human-rights groups, battling to patch together the gruesome details from shaky telephone connections to hospital doctors and eye witnesses, estimate the death toll at about 200. (See photos of Muammar Gaddafi's rise to power.)
Until now, the violence has been relatively contained to an area about 600 miles east of Tripoli. But late on Sunday night, the turmoil seemed to touch the heart of the capital itself - a gracious Mediterranean city where the Intercontinental, Starwood Four Points and Marriott chains have all recently built large seaside hotels. After midnight on Sunday a resident in one of Tripoli's upscale neighborhoods scribbled a message online saying that "thousand [people] with machetes and guns" were on his street, "looting, storming houses. We have barracked [sic] ourselves in our house." Shortly after, he signed off, saying "can't talk, not safe outside."
Saif al-Islam's speech mentioned no turmoil in the capital. Instead, he conceded that the heavy casualties in Benghazi and elsewhere were partly owed to "mistakes from the army" - presumably referring to units opening fire on unarmed demonstrators when the protests began last Tuesday. That remark was about the only concession he made, however. Instead, he warned that soldiers would have no reluctance to fire on demonstrators - a fact clearly demonstrated during the past few days - in contrast to the militaries' behavior in Tunisia and Egypt during the uprisings there during the past six weeks. "The army now will have a fundamental role in imposing security and bringing in normality into the country," he said. "We will destroy all these elements of sedition. We will not give up any inch of the Libyan territory."
Last night's speech was not only a critical point in trying to staunch a nascent revolt against Libya's repressive regime. It was a turning point for Saif himself.
Ever since the U.S. reached a dÉtente with Libya in 2003 and lifted sanctions in 2005, Saif has acted as an assurance for the future, for oil companies who have plowed billions into the country during the past six years, even though he officially has no political title. In interviews with oil executives, all say that Saif is the person whom they would most like to see running Libya. He made occasional appearances at the World Economic Forums. And during two visits to Libya, I've seen countless corporate executives from the U.S. and Europe line up for appointments with Saif.(See how Saif could help reform Libya.)
For his part, Saif has stressed for years the need to end Libya's state-run institutions and open up its closed economy to foreign investment. He oversaw the creation of a new National Economic Development Board, whose head is Mahmud Gebril, an economist with a doctorate at the University of Pittsburgh. Another close Saif ally is the oil chief Shokri Ghanem, a former Prime Minister who lived for years in Vienna as an Opec official, and speaks flawless English. When government hard-liners tried to unseat the reformist Ghanem in 2009, Saif simply reinstalled him - no questions asked. It was, said one oil executive, a huge relief.
Urbane and cosmopolitan - he lives much of the time in London - Saif is also wily and ambitious. In 2009 and 2010 he pushed to have the country's so-called General People's Assembly - an unelected body which meets to pass laws - discuss a new constitution, but finally retreated on the issue, apparently having lost out to hard-liners in the government.
When I interviewed Saif at home in Tripoli in February last year, he said he firmly believed that almost all Libyans wanted total political freedoms, and he displayed open impatience with those who were blocking change, while stopping short of questioning his father's rule. When I asked what level of freedom he would like to see in Libya, he said, "I'm talking about the level of freedom like in Holland. We want those changes now, not in 10 or 15 years time," he said, sitting in his living room set amid an orange grove in a large villa. "In black Africa we see real democracy, real elections, real parliaments, real constitutions. Why don't we have the same as them?" (See why Gaddafi feels secure despite the uprising.)
Many protesters in Libya say they too want democracy and open elections, and indeed, Saif last night promised a General People's Assembly discussion on forging a constitution for Libya. Yet he showed no readiness to tolerate political dissent - and insisted that the current turmoil was the work of foreign instigators and Islamic separatists.
In an interview in Tripoli last February, Ghanem, the oil chief, said there "cannot be real economic reform without political reform." Saif made it clear on Sunday night that neither reform would occur without bloodshed.
See TIME's special report "The Middle East in Revolt."
See TIME's Top 10 Everything of 2010.
View this article on Time.com
Most Popular on Time.com:
View the original article here

Obama's Sidestep (Time.com)

Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images

President Obama said in January that taming the federal budget deficit requires tackling the rising costs of programs like Social Security and Medicare. So why does his 2012 budget proposal, released Feb. 14, ignore reforming them? House Republican leaders labeled Obama's decision a "punt" and said he'd pay a price with voters who identified the budget as a top priority last November.

In reality, Obama had an easy call. Americans agree the deficit is a major problem—70% said so in a December Pew survey— but few support measures to address it. Most deficit-reduction steps rack up 52%-to-72% disapproval rates. The independent voters Obama needs in 2012 are wary of entitlement cuts, and the Pew poll showed more confidence in Obama's deficit-cutting skills than in those of congressional Republicans. Which explains why Obama is happy to see GOP leaders make the first move with their own deficit-reduction proposals, expected in April. Getting the deficit down is important. But it's hard to see why Obama should spend his political capital leading the charge.

Download TIME's iPhone, BlackBerry and Android applications.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View the original article here

Can an Egypt-style Revolution Take Place in Pakistan? (Time.com)

A thrill rushes through Imran Khan's voice at the mere mention of Egypt. The former Pakistani cricket legend-turned-politician is pleased for Hosni Mubarak's former subjects, but he's even more keen for similar scenes to play out in his own country. "I think Pakistan is completely ready for it," Khan, an opposition politician with a growing following among Pakistan's youth, tells TIME. "In fact, it's even more ready than Egypt was." Ever since Cairo's crowds seized the world's attention, many have wondered whether the insurgent spirit will spread from the Arab world to the wider Muslim one, and in particular, to nuclear-armed and militancy-wracked Pakistan. Some, like Khan, are counting on it.
Egypt and Pakistan are different in a few crucial ways, the primary one being that Pakistan's dictator has already departed, though not in an entirely dissimilar fashion. In his final year in power, General Pervez Musharraf was harried by a lawyer-led protest movement that demanded his exit, a return to democracy, and an independent judiciary. The streets were filled with photogenic displays of people power; there was a crackdown on pro-democracy activists; pro-Musharraf supporters were blamed for violence in the capital; the media was muzzled; and Washington fretted over the fate of a long-favored strongman, who cast himself as a bulwark against an Islamist takeover. (See photos of tempers flaring across the Middle East.)
For nearly three years now, Pakistan has had a civilian democracy. Long-established political parties, a lively media, and other political freedoms allow its citizens to dissent in ways that were not possible in Egypt when the protests started. Upcoming elections, scheduled to be held by 2013, will give Pakistanis another opportunity to oust the government. Indeed, Egypt seems to be moving toward today's Pakistan. Though civilian leaders are expected to emerge at the front of a fledgling democracy, major decision-making will likely remain backstage - as in Pakistan - in the hands of a powerful, U.S.-funded army.
But, as Khan points out, the two countries share many afflictions that make Pakistan prime for a new wave of unrest. He says Pakistan's youth, which comprise 70% of the country, are in exactly the same situation as the Arab world: completely discontented. According to a 2009 report by the British Council, only one in 10 of Pakistan's youth, defined as between 18 and 29, have confidence in the government. Half fear that they will not find jobs. Nearly four-fifths believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. And if anything, Pakistan is even younger than Egypt and other countries engaged in protest this week: The median age in Pakistan is 21. Across the Arab world, it is 22. (See TIME's complete coverage: "The Middle East in Revolt.")
For these youth, Pakistan's current system of government is perceived as denying more than it offers. Prospects for social mobility are slim: Pakistan is ranked below Egypt in the Human Development Index at 125th, with 60% of the nation living on less than $2 a day. Power is seen to be the preserve of a predatory few. Justice and security are elusive. The country's rulers are popularly thought of as venal, inept and distant, and they're widely accused of carving private fortunes out of a treasury to which they contribute scandalously little in tax. Plans to bequeath their political parties to their sons are as grave an affront to many as Mubarak's suspected intention to anoint Gamal his successor. Some 119 suicides, like the one committed by Tunisian vegetable seller Mohammed Bouazizi, took place in Pakistan in 2010.
President Asif Ali Zardari is no Mubarak. It has barely been two years since he assumed power, and his weakness is as emblematic of his leadership as the Egyptian dictator's strength was of his. Where Mubarak brutally silenced his opponents, Zardari's could not be heard more loudly. In Pakistan, real political power lies not in Islamabad, but at the army's headquarters in neighboring Rawalpindi. As in Egypt, the military is careful to shun an overtly political role, but away from the glare of public scrutiny, it quietly manages national security, foreign policy, and elements of the economy. And, also as in Egypt, it evades direct blame for circumstances it helped create.
Nevertheless, any popular upheaval in Pakistan would likely target Zardari, not the military. "Never in our history have we had such levels of corruption and such bad governance," alleges Khan. It's a sweeping claim that has been denied repeatedly by the government and called into question by analysts who, while not doubting the existence of corruption and poor governance under Zardari, doubted whether Khan is right about the relative scale of the problems. But the replacement of a few corrupt ministers as part of a recent cabinet reshuffle has done little to halt the spread of unconfirmed tales of legendary greed within government halls - all of which accumulate in the public imagination. (See the Arab world's lessons about democracy through revolution.)
On the economic front, things don't look likely to improve anytime soon. Pakistan is already struggling to meet requirements for an IMF rescue package, and the government, despite U.S. pressure, has failed to broaden its tax base. To generate revenue, it has resorted to printing bank notes. In the coming weeks, economists foresee hyperinflation, the local currency crashing, and capital being spirited abroad. Khan believes that such conditions will inflame an already hostile public mood, one that is being amplified by the local media. "You can see the whole thing already bubbling under surface," says Khan, referring to a recent strike by airline workers that recently won the dismissal of its managing director.
Still, it is difficult to see disgruntled Pakistanis matching the Egyptians' unity. Some groups have already abortively attempted their own day of rage, to little effect. Unlike the victorious residents of Cairo in Tahrir Square, Pakistanis are riven by deep ethnic, cultural, political and sectarian divides. The middle class in Pakistan is a mere sliver of the population at just 20 million people out of a population of180 million. Social media tools like Facebook and Twitter are only going to animate tiny crowds. Pakistani revolutions also suffer a notorious history of false alarms, and Khan, for one, has a record of raising the level of revolutionary rhetoric, only to see no groundswell of popular anger to back it up.
Khan is correct, however, in pointing out that a vast stock of tinder has gathered. The question is whether a flame will be set to it. Khan suggests that it could be the case of Raymond Davis, a U.S. diplomat awaiting trial who killed two Pakistanis in Lahore last month. President Obama has asked that Davis be released under diplomatic immunity, but Pakistanis have become increasingly united in their rage at his alleged crime. Zardari's government, which is siding with the U.S. and putting pressure on the courts to release Davis, is caught in the crossfire. "This is not an ordinary situation," says Khan. "If he is returned to the US under diplomatic immunity, it might trigger the revolution off." If it does, it is unlikely to be anywhere near as peaceful or as stable as the one the world has just witnessed.
See pictures of Pakistan subcultures.
See pictures of the aftermath of the Pakistan floods.
View this article on Time.com
Most Popular on Time.com:
View the original article here

Service Members Sue Pentagon over Rapes (Time.com)

The stereotypes exist because they're true: the U.S. military pays too much for weapons, fumbles postwar planning and can't protect its people from sexual predators within the ranks. That third maxim surfaced again Feb. 15, when 15 women and two men filed a federal suit against the Pentagon, as well as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for failing to prevent and punish sexual abuse by fellow service members.

The plaintiffs allege that reports of rape or other forms of abuse are often ignored or mishandled and that troops "openly mocked and flouted" the weak protections currently on the books. Offenders are rarely punished, even when wrongdoing has been proved, and in many cases continue to serve alongside their accusers. Advocates urge a new system of handling abuse allegations that would allow victims to go outside the chain of command and report incidents to an independent party. A Pentagon spokesman said the issue "is now a command priority, but we clearly still have more work to do." It's not the first time the military has promised to do better. The record suggests it won't be the last.

Download TIME's iPhone, BlackBerry and Android applications.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View the original article here

Next for the Jeopardy! Winner: Dr. Watson, I Presume? (Time.com)

IBM's 'Watson' computing system.

After conquering puny humans Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter and winning a total of $77,147 over three days and two full games on Jeopardy!, IBM's know-it-all new supercomputer is going to med school. On Wednesday, IBM, along with Nuance Communications Inc. and the Columbia University and University of Maryland medical schools, announced that they are developing Watson as a diagnostic tool that can help doctors identify diseases and recommend treatments. They hope to begin lab tests as early as next year, with real world testing later in 2012.

"What makes Watson unique is that it can rip through massive amounts of information and give a small amount of possible answers with levels of confidence," says Dr. John Kelly, IBM's senior vice president of research.

Doctors have long relied on technology to help them manage patient care — electronically stored patient histories, digital lab results and machines that regulate medication are all commonplace in today's hospitals. Indeed, the first attempt to create a machine that could help diagnose human illness came back in the 1970s, when Stanford University researchers developed MYCIN — a computer designed to indentify different types of bacteria responsible for infections. But even the most up-to-date systems, which were developed in the 1980s, still require physicians to spend costly time typing in test data and patient information, and still only cover a limited number of diseases. (See the top 10 man-vs.-machine moments.)

That's why doctors like Eliot Siegel, a professor and vice chair at Maryland's department of diagnostic radiology, says Watson's capabilities are necessary now. Imagine a supercomputer that can not only store and collate patient data but also interpret records in a matter of seconds, analyze additional patient information and research from medical journals and deliver possible diagnoses and treatments, with the probability of each outcome precisely calculated. "I think it's going to usher in the next generation of medicine," says Siegel. "It takes me 20 minutes to an hour or more to read through a patient's electronic medical record. Having a computer understand and present the information to me is a huge step towards allowing me to make a better diagnosis. It is really the future of medicine."

Watson's developers have always had higher goals for the room-sized, multimillion dollar supercomputer than just winning a game show. Its ability to understand natural language makes it a valuable tool in many different applications. Unlike even the most advanced Internet search engines, which can only find results for specific requests, Watson can make connections between words and determine a logical answer from imputed data. For example, if it was given the Jeopardy! clue "This is where Stefani Germanotta was born," it could infer from the data in its memory banks that where a person was born is also known as a birthplace, and that Stefani Germanotta is actually the real name of Lady Gaga. From the statements "Lady Gaga's birthplace was in Manhattan" and "The singer of 'Born This Way' was born in the Big Apple,' Watson can correctly infer the answer — New York City. The supercomputer's ability to recognize the links and associations between terms in different contexts can be further applied to the medical field, especially in the case of doctors who abbreviate or misspell terms and for patients who might not know the correct scientific term for their ailing body parts. (See a brief history of the computer.)

"It's a place where we could do real good," says David Ferrucci, IBM's principal investigator of the Watson project. "It's both an important business and an area where we can help society and help people we know. There's a crisis in this country and in the world of delivering high quality health care."

That's why going on Jeopardy! made sense. Any computer can play trivia games, but Jeopardy!'s emphasis on puns, wordplay and brain-teasers allows Watson to show what it can do in a basic way that average viewers can instantly understand. "I knew the potential was there for a great computer system that could play the game [but] I didn't give it the kind of serious thought that I should have, in terms of examining the technology that was required," Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek told TIME Techland. "It wasn't until I saw the computer play that I thought, 'Holy smokes, this is serious stuff.'" Trumping his competition Jennings and Rutter, who only earned $24,000 and $21,600 respectively, it was evident that Watson could not only recall information at lightning speed, but he could interpret the English language and more than hold his own against warm-blooded competitors when it comes to analyzing wordplay.

But TV is one thing; real life is another. Some medical professionals, including Siegel's colleagues, worry that a future Doctor Watson might make us too dependent on technology. A human diagnostician immediately understands that when we say we've got stomach pains, we could really be talking about any number of organs in the abdominal area, not just the stomach specifically; computers tend to think more literally. That's why the IBM team insists that Watson can never supplant doctors completely. Katharine Frase, vice president of industry solutions at IBM Research, envisions a future where a version of Watson can be used to assist doctors in small practices where there may not be a cardiologist or urologist on call. Clinicians can use it to get answers faster rather than spending the time looking for a specialist. With a growing number of medical studies being published every day, it's hard for doctors to keep up with all the latest data. Watson can store all that information and use it to help a doctor make his or her decision. Siegel suggests thinking of Watson as one of the other doctors on the Fox medical drama House: while it's Dr. House who always comes up with the final answer, his team provides the hints and clues that help him along the diagnostic path. Frase points out that while Watson can be taught to understand that humans can exaggerate or downplay their symptoms, a computer can't judge if patients are lying as well as a human doctor can just by looking at their faces. "I don't think that any machine is ever going to take the place of the decision making process of the human or the understanding of the consequences of one decision over another," she adds. "That's one reason why people go in person to a doctor. We've got a long way to go before a computer can read human emotion."

See pictures of Jeopardy! Host Alex Trebek.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

View the original article here