August 15, 2008

Trips Abroad

It seems that, whosoever attains power in Islamabad, two aspects somehow remain the same.  First, it is non-stop publicity and flattery on PTV.  Second, it is the non-stop visits by the ruling circles and their favorites to the West.  The former leaves little impact on the Pakistan public.  The latter leaves little impact on Western hosts.  The results are the same. 
There have, of course, been some exceptions.  President Ayub Khan’s visit to Washington during 1961 created a splash when he was memorably feted by Jack and Jacqueline Kennedy at Mount Vernon – the home of George Washington, America’s first president – on the banks of the Potomac River, outside Washington.  To this day, that White House-planned function is considered as a model Presidential banquet. 
When President Kennedy was slain in 1963, Ayub did not go to Washington to commiserate and, instead, sent his foreign minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who ended up being upbraided by an irate President Lyndon Johnson.  Bhutto, however, handled himself with aplomb when, 10 years later, he addressed the National Press Club in Washington, countering a question on the Watergate scandal with a ready quip about water logging in Pakistan. 
Zia – who was a less-frequent visitor – did stand up to US legislators on Capitol Hill who were pressuring him on Pakistan’s nuclear program, by pointing out the double standards by raising the issue of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, according to noted investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in his book, “The Samson Option”. 
The over-frequent visits by Musharraf and Benazir to Washington may have generated some sizzle but there was little substance.  Both wasted no time in bowing to the pro-Israeli lobby.  Indeed, if 10% of the effort and energy spent on appeasing outside interests were to have been invested in giving relief to the poor in Pakistan, the country today would have been on the road to prosperity. 
As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt.  The frequency of visits has diminished the national image, instead of enhancing it.  If the messenger is weak, then the message is not taken seriously. 
The threshold question needs to be asked: do these visits help or hurt Pakistan? Often the visitors tell the hosts what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. 
Musharraf cheapened and weakened his presidency by being taken for granted through his frequent trips to the States, going to the extent of choosing unwisely to launch his book there during his US visit in September 2006. 
Poor leadership produces poor results.  It doesn’t matter whether the label is that of a democrat or an autocrat.  Most go abroad with neither the equipment in terms of articulation and knowledge nor the commitment in terms of integrity and determination to project the national perspective.  They appear weak and meek on the world stage. The outcome is predictably a sorry spectacle.  Those who act like pharaohs before their own people are reduced to mere order-takers in the West. 
In striking contrast, US Presidential candidate Barack Obama, during his visit to Germany – a country not noted for its pro-American proclivities – was serenaded by a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin who, instead of burning US flags were waving them – this, at a time of deep unpopularity of America in Europe.  Obama, the candidate, got a better reception than sitting US presidents, like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. 
Based upon the foregoing diagnosis, what then is the prescription?  Some basic steps need to be taken.  One, curb the number of visits and the size of the entourage.  Two, only send those abroad who are fit to represent the nation, in terms of ability and integrity, irrespective of political affiliation.  When a team is to be selected for a tough tournament abroad, it is irrelevant who is someone’s nephew or cousin, who is wealthy, or who is the toady of present-day rulers.  It need not be an exercise in accommodating favorites or excluding foes. The sole criterion has to be who has the capacity to perform best for Pakistan. There has to be a loyalty to the objective, not a romance with an individual.  Three, the visitors must stay in modest quarters rather than deluxe hotels.  Adopting austere values, instead of Mughal pomp, will by itself send a message of utter commitment to the mission.  Finally, those American policy elites who laud the present set-up as “the best government we could ever hope to get in Pakistan” need to be asked, how would Americans feel if foreign powers dump indicted fugitives on them as rulers?
Incompetence breeds incompetence.  This is one factor why vital causes suffer.  The time to end joy rides at the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayers of Pakistan is now.  Somebody who is not impressive at Lahore will hardly be impressive in London.

Now, as before, there is a shortfall in wisdom and a surplus of cunning. The whole notion of visits abroad needs to be revisited.  It may reduce the chance of “leaders” being tripped up on trips abroad.