America and Pakistan in Odd Relationship - 2
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg , CA
“America needs to be reminded that its history and example have provided millions with inspiration for their own struggles for freedom, democracy, and a better life. If the world’s superpower has the grace and modesty to say it is sorry, people would rub their eyes in disbelief, pinch themselves, and then smile because a new day had dawned”.
- Desmond Tutu, Foreign Policy-Jan-Feb. 2008
Hillary Clinton laughed most heartily when a reporter compared America’s attitude towards Pakistan to that of a traditional mother-in-law, who is ever persistent and is never happy with the performance of her daughter-in-law, no matter how hard the latter may try. The analogy was apt, but incomplete. Who in the equation was the bridegroom? Could America be both: the bridegroom as well as his mother? Perhaps.
America definitely has suffered a good amount of “goodwill” that it once singularly enjoyed the world over because of the aggressive policies it began to pursue after the 9/11 tragedy. A new configuration regarding American prestige has emerged in the world. It is based both on its love as well as its hatred.
There is no denying the fact that America is indispensable for the world in many ways - it has mediated amongst the bitterest antagonists, like India and Pakistan; Israel and the Middle East; Serbs and the Kosovos; it keeps the waterways of the world seas safe, ensuring the free flow of oil and risk-free sailing of the commercial ships throughout the world; in many cases it has prevented and helped end regional conflicts wreaking genocide; it is instrumental in keeping under check the nuclear proliferation in the world; it has a knack to rush economic aid to the needy in the wake of natural disasters. Imagine a world without America. Somali sea-pirates present a glimpse of that world.
A recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland provides evidence that America’s positive and benevolent image is eroding fast because of its foreign policies. Europe and China are emerging in the global affairs more positively and there is a tremendous decrease in admiration for the United States. Why? Is America no more a candy daddy?
According to the Foreign Policy–July/August, 2005, “20 of the 23 countries that were surveyed, ‘a majority or a plurality welcomed Europe’s becoming more influential than the United States”. Sixteen countries welcomed China’s emergence and its becoming more powerful economically as a counterweight to America’s economic bullying posture. America, indeed, still offers a lot to the world. Its educational institutions are world-class; its legal system is still held in high esteem, and American people in general are still the best to befriend with and to work with. They are in general fair, just, freedom-loving, full of initiative, and highly conscious of being Americans. America may be soft on greed, but is hard on its failures.
One thing the Founding Fathers of America hated most was ‘Imperialism’, and “Tyranny’ and “Religious intolerance”. James Madison, the most influential author of the Constitution wrote in 1793, “In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department… The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.” President Bush on October 11, 2000 did not pinch any words when he said, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’, the dictator”, and a little more than a year later, he replied to a question asked by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, ‘I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.” And this basically is a Third World or a developing country’s problem. Pakistan is currently facing it under the façade of democracy.
Unfortunately, all the three — imperialism, tyranny and religious intolerance - appear to have become a part of the American narrative and policy when it comes to dealing with the world. A good number of countries of the world accuse America of arrogance, of imperialism and of militarism, which it carries out under such euphemisms as “lone superpower”, “indispensable nation,”, “reluctant sheriff”, ‘humanitarian intervention,”, and , “globalization,”, writes Chalmers Johnson in his article, “Sorrows of Empire’.
According to Chalmbers Johnson, in his book ‘The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic,’ there are four sorrows which ‘are certain to be visited on the Unites States as a consequence of such policies. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the US will cease to resemble the country that once was outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans; second, is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress, and the executive branch transforms itself into a military junta. Third, is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health and safety of its citizens.” All the four factors have duly begun manifesting themselves in America, and are registering their negative effects on the lives of the American people.
America like the people of Pakistan or that of the Third World countries is facing huge economic and income disparity between a few rich, and a vast majority of the poor. It faced it in the 1930’s. In this kind of “Social Darwinism”, wealth gets defined as a sign of God’s favor, and poverty of the poor as the direct result of their laziness and lousiness, and of God’s displeasure with the poor. Such a rationale has always been a clever ploy of the rich to beguile the poor people, convincing them to see success and failure in life in simple terms, like we see a weak animal getting eliminated by a strong one; a sapless twig rotting and falling; a black eagle mother watching her strong chick tearing apart the weak one. They convince people to accept their fate like they accept the laws of nature. No one should have the right to intervene in these laws. This was once helped by a Yale University professor, W. G. Sumner. Nature eliminates the weak and the unhealthy, so does the market. Is being poor a matter of fate or a matter of human greed?
As far back as 1839, writer John O’Sullivan defined the American ambition, ‘We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march”. In less than 70 years of its inception, America discovered the limit of land that stood between their “Manifest Destiny” and their march. Booming economy, increasing population, and rising ambition and confidence made them look towards the vast West. Quite a few believed that it was Providence that had assigned them the task “to settle land all the way to the Pacific Ocean in order to spread democracy…it was America’s Manifest Destiny to overspread and to possess the whole continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty…”, wrote O’Sullivan in 1845. America has not looked back since then, not even in the 21 st century.
Both America and Pakistan were born out of an ideal and idea. America in its early 70 years of birth rose like a shining star, even survived a civil war a few years later; Pakistan in its history of almost the same number of years, failed even to take-off. To the early Americans nothing favored as nothing existed here except vast marshy and wooded lands and hostile natives; Pakistan inherited a benign land, a workable infra-structure and a most resilient, hard-working and tough people. America and Pakistan both consisted of immigrants, and both inherited problems in the choice of which, like in the choice of parents and neighbors, they have had no role. One prospered, the other withered. (Continued next week)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
