[ALBSA-Info] If you have $400 to spare

[Bejko, Kreshnik]

For a measly 400 bucks  The Economist professes to give you a glimpse
of what's to follow the strikes on Afghanistan. Ominously it gives the
Musharraf
regime in Pakistan, the only Muslim member of the Global Nuclear Family,
a 50/50 chance of  survival. Here's the executive summary of The Economist
report appropriately titeled: The New World Disorder


Ever since the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11th, the
world has been struggling to adjust to a new reality. The last time
international calculations faced change on anything like this scale was when
the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989. Then the first President George Bush
optimistically declared a 'new world order'. The 'end of history' was
proclaimed, with fundamental political and economic arguments supposedly
settled for good. Such illusions now lie buried in the rubble of the World
Trade Centre. The world is struggling to understand the minds and motives
behind international networks of terrorism and the conditions that feed
them. And another President George Bush has the task of tackling a suddenly
dangerous and unstable global landscape, a new world disorder. Calculations,
not to mention events, are moving rapidly. History, far from ending, seems
to have speeded up.
This briefing is designed to help you keep pace. Drawing on the Economist
Intelligence Unit’s unrivalled network of country specialists, it offers
over 70 pages of informed analysis on the consequences of the 'war on
terrorism' region by region and country by country. It helps you to identify
the (often surprising) new alliances that are emerging in the wake of the
attacks, as well as the points of tension that are likely to create
problems. It provides insight into the calculations of political leaders,
and into the new risks of doing business around the world. And it explains
the rise of militant Islam, providing a guide to the main groups in the
Middle East.
Here are just a few of the sample findings of this wide-ranging report:
*	On the US military response
The likeliest (and least risky) military response is a carefully targeted
campaign confined to Afghanistan, with the aim of flushing out Osama bin
Laden and achieving the capitulation or defeat of Afghanistan’s Taliban
regime. But even such a limited campaign would involve significant risks:
failure to achieve its objectives, a splintering of the alliance against
terrorism as civilian lives are lost, instability in neighbouring—and
nuclear—Pakistan. Pakistan’s leader, General Pervez Musharraf, is given only
a 50% chance of surviving in power. 
*	On the countries most affected
The current outbreak of political unity in the US will come under strain as
the 2002 election season approaches. The new government in Indonesia, the
world’s most populous Muslim country, must now cope with rising Islamist
ferment as well a perilously fragile economy. Russia, in return for
co-operating with the US, will feel it now has a free hand in Chechnya (as
well as many other new opportunities). Saudi Arabia will attempt to repeat
its Gulf War balancing act between loyalty to the US and its role as the
heartland of Islam. For EU countries, the anti-terrorism imperative will
greatly intensify hitherto half-hearted police and judicial co-operation. 
*	On the operating conditions for businesses around the world
Cost-trimming—already under way before September 11th—will acquire a new
intensity as global growth splutters. Staff security and safety procedures
will rise to the top of the management agenda. Decisions on office location
and business travel will have a new security dimension. Risk management and
disaster-recovery policies will need to be re-evaluated, and the length of
supply chains reassessed.