Pakistan: Caught in the Crossfire, Part 1

“Yes, Pakistan may be a failed state. So what?” said Naveed.  “I don’t care if my country is a failed state or not, but I do care who is behind its failures. They’re the ones I blame for failing my country.”

It’s been more than a year since I last saw my friend, Naveed, a 26-year-old marketing and finance graduate who is now a lecturer at an Islamabad University. He went back to his country soon after completing his Masters degree in Business Administration. When leaving for home, his mood was an eerie mixture of optimism and caution. “I’m confident that things will finally change in my country,” he said before boarding the flight. I remember his confident words but can’t forget the empty smile on his face.  It seems to require more than confident words and smiles to live in a country where optimism and pessimism on any given day are as predictable as the flip of a coin.

Pakistan is  a country where failure is rewarded. We like to live in a state of denial.  We often believe that we have never been wrong or can be wrong.  In the process we make many excuses to justify our actions.

LAMENTABLE HISTORY

“Moign, to understand my ‘lecture,’ as you put it, you have to understand the history of the country,” Naveed said jokingly. It seemed that he was once again enjoying the argumentative chats that we used to have in our free time while living together in student accommodation. Nothing seems to have changed since then.

Pakistan has a long history of foreign interference before there was any lawlessness, unemployment, corruption, civil mismanagement, or army intervention in the country. Soon after its birth in 1947 as a result of blood-strewn partition carried out by the imperial British, the infant state had to pick a master that would act as a caretaker of the country’s policies and safeguard its interests. The choices at that time were the USSR and the USA. The country’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, embraced the latter. And the results of this “embrace,”  as promised, were magical.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the new Pakistani master taught its new satellite state to be wary of two things — communism and grass-roots democracy. As a result, the rulers of Pakistan always kept these two “viruses” in check. Thousands of workers suspected of communist sympathies were put behind the bars and a general election was ruled out in favor of a “sustained democracy” that was “compatible with the country’s Islamic and social values.” Both of these decisions had a devastating effect on the country’s democratic identity and politico-economic activities.

Washington, the “torch-bearer of democracy” and “leader of the free world,” never raised an eyebrow when a military coup in 1958 overthrew the civilian administration in the then Pakistani capital city of Karachi. Instead, new accords of friendship and military partnership were signed that gave the Americans access to the Soviet’s backyard for the first time. The US military soon stationed U2 bombers in the country to keep an eye on Soviet activities in Central Asia.  (One of these U2’s launched from Pakistan would of course be shot down by USSR surface-to-air missiles over Soviet skies on May 1, 1960.)

“This was the first time we pleased our masters and had bit of a misadventure,” a bitter Naveed remarked.

OBSESSION OF THE SOCIETY

“Islam, it seems to me, is a blanket term that defines our ambitions and justifies each and every deed performed in our political and social life. From politicians to common man, everyone has his or her own idea of Islam and chart their plans accordingly.”

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam with the founding leaders promising no room for ethnic partisanship and discrimination. But that’s not what really happened. The country witnessed its first bout of instability in 1952 when Bengal was stripped of its national language status despite the fact that it was spoken by more than half of the country’s population. The imposition of Urdu as the sole national language was seen as an imperial move that triggered riots across the eastern half of the newborn geographically disjointed state. This was the first time when the seeds of ethnic divide were sown in the newly cultivated fields of Pakistan.

The Pakistani army fought the Indian army in 1965 when its misadventures (which included covert military operations in Indian controlled Kashmir) backfired in occupied Jammu & Kashmir. New Delhi [India] then invaded our country to teach us a lesson. For the first time we raised the flag of Jihad against an occupying power and the then (military) rulers drummed up massive support – all in the name of Islam.

Naveed added that this is the official textbook version of Pakistani history, and not necessarily his.

From this time on, we have never looked back on the idea of our army as the vanguard of Islam, and we, as a nation, as the righteous people.

HEADS & TAILS

The situation got more interesting in 1970 after the first ever free and fair general elections for a parliament were held in both wings of Pakistan–East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now Pakistan).

The Bengali separatist movement in 1971 complained that the majority Bengali ethnic group was being sidelined by the minority Punjabis that dominated the civil service and the military. They also accused West Pakistan of usurping the resources of East Pakistan and exploiting them. Statistically, they weren’t wrong as exporting jute produced in East Pakistan generated most of Pakistan’s revenues, while East Pakistanis suffered under grinding poverty.

“I think that was the first time we said: ‘Heads or tails, both flips of the coin are ours, hence we win the toss,” Naveed said while referring to an Urdu proverb that has a similar connotation.

A military operation was waged against Awami League, the party that was demanding more autonomy for the Bengali-dominated East Pakistan and a fair distribution of resources between both entities of  the Pakistani federation. Though winning a clear majority in 1970 elections, Awami League’s leader, Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman, was denied the transfer of power and was instead arrested and tried for treason.

Disgruntled East Pakistanis took up arms against the powerful Punjabi-dominated Pakistani Army. A bloody civil war broke out in the eastern wing of Pakistan that saw the army, along with its pro-Islamic paramilitary groups, attempting to crush the separatist movement. Bengali separatists, thanks to the active support from India, soon weakened the grip of the Pakistani army in the eastern territory. The nine month long bloody movement witnessed countless massacres of innocent people and wanton destruction of property and infrastructure. The people’s power superseded the military’s might, and the Pakistani army surrendered to Bengali insurgents and their principal backers – the Indian army.

This is how we learnt the lesson. Or shall I say, this is how we are taught at school. We are told: This all happened due to some miscreants that created mistrust between us (Pakistanis) and Bengalis (Bangladeshis). India wanted to extract revenge and dismember us. But thanks to our valiant Islamic army we did not let that happen. We succeeded in keeping our western flank intact while giving our Bengali brothers the right to freedom.

Naveed’s tone while quoting his history textbook didn’t seem convincing to me, but I let him continue rather than dispute the textbook version.

HAPPY MASTER

Pakistan’s chief ally, the United States of America, of course did not practically intervene in the conflict. However, Islamabad enjoyed its tacit approval throughout the conflict. The USS Enterprise was dispatched to the Bay of Bengal in 1971 to boost the morale of its ally in the region. The hue and cry raised by human rights groups over genocides committed by the Pakistani army were ignored, and a steady supply of military hardware and ammunition flowed from the US.

The public was in shock when they found that the Pakistani army has surrendered to the Indian army and the Bengali separatists. No one could believe their eyes. Their army, strengthened by the spirit of Jihad, was defeated by the Indian army and their “mercenaries.” At least this is what was fed to them during the 1971 conflict.

Naveed insisted that people for the first time became wary of the Pakistani army’s alliance with the US army and lost their faith in the military as an institution.

“The surrender of 94,000 Pakistani military and paramilitary personnel was not a joke,” he added while referring to the fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971. “All the architects of this humiliation got away with their crimes and were never brought to justice. The public felt betrayed by their own guardians,” he said while referring to the fact that though a formal inquiry of the war was conducted, the main players of the debacle were never punished.

HOLY ALLIANCE

After a brief interval of civilian rule from 1972 to 1977, a military regime returned from the barracks to instigate a coup d’état. Under an alleged agreement with the US, Pakistani military chief General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Pakistan’s first democratically elected civilian leader, Zulfiqar Bhutto. Bhutto was later hanged to death on charges of treason and murder.

While other murder cases drag on for years and years, Mr. Bhutto was executed within five months. Lawlessness, vigilantism, police heavy handedness, extra-judicial murders, and many other problems stem from the dilapidated justice system of Pakistan.

Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR in December 1979, soon after General Zia took the reigns of the government. The Soviet invasion not only rang bells in Islamabad, but it also stirred unease in Washington, DC. With the Vietnam War’s humiliation in mind, the Americans seized on the opportunity to drag the Soviets into a long, bloody war that would deplete their power and leave them economically and militarily drained and exhausted.

Bureaucrats under the command of the then US Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski initiated a plan that started the training of Afghan insurgents by the CIA months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan itself.

The US struck a holy alliance with the anti-Soviet insurgents who called themselves “mujahideen” – the ones waging Jihad in the name of God – to bleed the USSR army to death in Afghanistan and seek revenge for role in the Vietnam defeat. To me this was the height of hypocrisy demonstrated by both sides. While the capitalist Americans and Islamists in the Middle East and South Asia seldom saw eye to eye on any issue and often regarded one another as adversaries, they struck an alliance against communism. What a historic alliance it was!”

ARMY, INC.

While the world’s attention was set on the war in Afghanistan, General Zia-ul-Haq’s autocratic regime throttled the voices of reform and democracy in the country at the behest of his “Islamic agenda.”  During his 11 years in power, the country never had free and fair democratic elections and the army, in connivance with the so-called Islamist forces, ruled with an iron fist. At this time, all important civil institutions like the judiciary, election commission, press, bureaucracy, and foreign service came under direct military control, and the army’s role in the country’s day-to-day affairs changed from an institution to a corporation.

The army initiated schemes for banking, insurance, heavy industries, housing, aviation, education, security firms, farms, and food production and soon became the country’s biggest enterprise. This in turn weakened private businesses, which  stood no chance of competing with the military backed businesses due to their growing political and economic clout. Civil institutions also suffered a direct blow and languished due to deliberate neglect and apathy, partly due to political strife in the country.

General Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash along with many of his top generals and the US Ambassador on August 17, 1988. The country then returned to civilian rule after 11 years of military in power, but little changed on the ground. The army, instead of returning to the barracks, realigned itself and started interfering in politics by supporting its favorite candidates.

Naveed agrees with the view that Pakistan’s problems are not the result of a few years of mismanagement and chaos. “The crises have been brewing since the military eclipsed the civilian institutions and democracy was wound up in favor of a martial law in 1958,” the young Pakistani graduate said lamenting the fact that army’s role was only strengthened by the Americans. “We have never seen them (Americans) flaying military intervention in our politics. This is a mockery of democracy by any standards.”

“So what are the reasons behind the insurgency in the tribal regions of Pakistan including the latest bloodshed in Swat valley? What went so wrong that led the country to the brink of failure and to be labeled as a failed state?” I asked Naveed impromptu. Naveed, totally baffled by the complex nature of my questions, took me out for a walk. “Is it OK if I answer your questions in the open air? I need to breathe some fresh air,” he asked. I nodded and made a quick exit with him.

Why is the insurgency raging in many parts of Pakistan? Born in the tribal areas, whom will he blame for the deaths of innocent lives and suffering of millions of people? I kept on walking in the chilly evening wondering what he was going to say about the ground realities.

I will explore the answer to this and more in Part 2 of this two part series.

Indian Elections – A Multiparty Masala

This will be the first of two articles about this year’s Indian national elections and the first in a series of pieces about major elections in Asia this year.

The largest democracy on Earth is presently in the middle of national elections. In India, three out of five phases of voting have been completed, and in only two weeks the final results will be known. Indian elections are always rambunctious. The democratic process itself is chaotic, accommodating dozens of political parties, thousands of candidates, and around 700 million voters who live in the world’s biggest cities and most remote villages, speak dozens of languages, and represent thousands of castes across a shockingly wide socioeconomic spectrum. Corruption, violence, and outlandish campaigning are a part of elections in any given year. Newspapers and news channels flood the cities and countryside with relentless election news and gossip while politicians crisscross the country in frenetic campaigning that can draw crowds of hundreds of thousands of people. The frequent involvement of cricket and film stars lends an air of celebrity and glamour to the proceedings. Hindi-speakers frequently use the word tamasha to describe elections and politics – a word meaning a “spectacle” and “amusement.” It also connotes rowdiness and a sense of being outside of normal life.

This year’s national elections are no different. But last November’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai have raised concerns about serious violence interfering with the elections. Indeed, after a right-wing Hindu nationalist candidate made inflammatory anti-Muslim remarks in public speeches, a Muslim mafia don allegedly threatened to kill him. But, this is really just par for the course. So far, the press has said little about (presumably Pakistani-based) Muslim militants planning any attacks during the elections. The larger threat – during the first two phases of polling at least – were Maoist guerrillas known as Naxalites, active in many of India’s poorest rural regions, who called for an election boycott and carried out murderous attacks on police forces, detonated bombs, and hijacked a train, leading to the deaths of over two dozen people.

With that said, the chance that India’s elections will be derailed by any violent organization or event is exceedingly small. Barring an unprecedented attack in India, this year’s National Assembly (Lok Sabha) elections will be completed relatively smoothly and on time. With the counting of votes on May 16, the election will come to a climax, and it is difficult at this point for anyone to imagine what is likely to happen. By all accounts, this election is a toss up, and the Election Commission’s ruling that exit polls and post-poll surveys be banned have made it even more difficult to predict what may happen. Complex coalition politics, which have dominated national politics in India since the 1990s, makes this election more unpredictable than the typical close US election, and this year’s addition of a third and an even smaller fourth coalition of regional parties makes these 2009 elections more jumbled than the last national elections five years ago. The stunning emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) since 2004 has also complicated matters.

Consider: The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the secular, centrist Congress Party, is currently a coalition of 16 parties. The UPA has ruled since 2004 and can claim a rather ho-hum record that is neither impressive nor a failure. The alliance that ruled from 1999-2004, and which has sat in opposition since, is the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the right-wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has recently been beset by serious infighting and an unclear message for voters. It now contains 10 parties. Until now, these two alliances were the only ones to wield enough power to gain control at the center. The Congress and the BJP have been the largest parties since the 1990s, but their support has gradually been chipped away by communist, regional, and caste-based parties. Until recently, these smaller parties had no choice but to ally themselves with the Congress or the BJP if they wanted to play a part in national politics. However, this year a Third Front has emerged, gambling that a coalition of such parties can perhaps capture as many seats as the UPA and the NDA. This would enable these parties to take power without bowing down to the two parties that have dominated national politics for the past two decades.

With this development, parties are jockeying for power and weighing their options before and after the elections. While some parties have committed to one alliance or another, other parties are waiting until after the votes are counted to pick a side. And whichever alliance is asked to form a government will, with some serious political wrangling, likely attract new parties to its side – whether they have committed to another or not.

In this day and age, this is how elections in India are won and lost. The mathematics and the political sticks and carrots necessary for building a winning coalition have all but drowned out issues, personalities, and ideologies. For evidence of this, just follow the Indian news. The vast majority of election coverage is currently speculation about likely alliances or defections, not about issues. Of course, certain events and issues may shape an election, but they must be extraordinary. Though this is a national election, voters are choosing local candidates (in India’s parliamentary democracy, the party or coalition with the most candidates elected forms the central government). And these local candidates must address local issues – issues which often don’t change a great deal in much of India. Who can ensure electricity, drinkable water, better roads, better health care facilities, and better schools? And with such a plethora of political parties catering to specific caste and religious sensibilities, many voters will simply vote their caste or religious identity. For this reason, I doubt that, aside from Mumbai and maybe other large Indian cities, the issue of terrorism will be important. Nor will the global economic crisis. What will be most important in these elections are the alliances that are negotiated. For now, those alliances have yet to cohere. And there are enough wild cards in the deck that the final outcome is anyone’s guess.

Will Love of Cricket Spell the End for Terrorism in Pakistan?

Today the BBC news brought word of an attack on the Sri Lankan national cricket team in the Pakistani city of Lahore. A driver and six policemen were killed and eight Sri Lankan players were wounded. They have now returned to Sri Lanka (also in the news today for its looming humanitarian disaster) to their grateful families and fans. This may not be of much significance to Americans who know and care little about cricket. Just another tragic terrorist attack on the other side of the world. Just another sign that Pakistan is a failed state. Just another demonstration of the craziness and ruthlessness of Islamic militants.

But this should be the event that finally turns most Pakistani leaders and public opinion firmly against domestic Islamic terrorists. Though this attack was against the Sri Lankan cricket team, the militants may as well have attacked the Pakistani team since their actions have essentially killed international cricket in Pakistan for the foreseeable future. Since the Mumbai attacks in November (linked to Pakistani militants), India has refused to send its team across the border. Sri Lanka went home without playing and New Zealand is likely to cancel its upcoming trip for fear of a similar attack. It certainly hurts Pakistan’s chances of co-hosting the 2011 Cricket World Cup, as had been planned. As long as violence threatens visiting teams, no one will be motivated to play in Pakistan.

Americans may not understand cricket-playing countries’ obsession with the sport. I can’t think of anything comparable in the US. We just don’t have a national sports team filled with popular superstars that is constantly in the public eye and that is closely and devoutly followed by so many. I have not spent time in Pakistan, but if the public’s fanatical devotion to the national team and players is anything like the Indian public’s (and I have been assured that it is), then denying these national heroes and their rabid fans of the future matches, prestige, and excitement international cricket brings will not be taken lightly. The Pakistani public may be willing to condone or overlook terrorist activity that does not affect them – that is limited to Kashmir, that only takes place in India, or that is in the remote border tribal areas. Attacking militant groups with substantial public support is politically dicey for Asif Ali Zardari’s weak government, and firm action can be difficult to carry out. But will the public and the government be willing to forgive this attack on their beloved sport, and indeed a way of life?

I doubt it. Despite previous suicide attacks, car bombs, and shootouts in Pakistan, today Islamic terrorists may have turned the Pakistani public against them in a way that no one else could have. This attack may finally force Pakistani politicians and the army to firmly crack down on what is a serious domestic threat. What may follow is a true fight for the soul and future of Pakistan – between violent, militant, fundamentalists and average, law-abiding Pakistani citizens. Believe it or not, things could be worse than they are in Pakistan. They may also get worse before they get better. But one can hope that if there is any silver lining to this attack, it is that it will ultimately save Pakistan from falling into the hands of violent fundamentalists. Pakistanis know that publicly stoning adulterers to death is just not as Pakistani as a rousing cricket match.

Mumbai Misperceptions: War is Not Imminent

Following the November 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, we repeatedly heard two messages. One, these attacks were India’s 9/11, and two, war between India and Pakistan was just around the corner.

Writer Amitav Ghosh divined a crucial connection between the two messages. “When commentators repeat the metaphor of 9/11, they are in effect pushing the Indian government to mount a comparable response.” Indeed, India’s opposition Hindu nationalist BJP has blustered, “Our response must be close to what the American response was.” Fearful of imminent war, the media has indulged in frantic hand wringing about Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals and renewed fears about the Indian subcontinent being “the most dangerous place on earth.”

As an observer of the subcontinent for over a decade, I am optimistic that war will not be the end result of this event. As horrifying as the Mumbai attacks were, they are not likely to drive India and Pakistan into an armed international conflict. The media frenzy over an imminent nuclear war seems the result of the media being superficially knowledgeable about the history of Indian-Pakistani relations, of feeling compelled to follow the most sensationalistic story, and being recently brainwashed into thinking that the only way to respond to a major terrorist attack was the American way – a war.

Here are four reasons why the Mumbai attacks will not result in a war:

1. For both countries, a war would be a disaster. India has been successfully building stronger relations with the rest of the world over the last decade. It has occasionally engaged in military muscle-flexing (abetted by a Bush administration eager to promote India as a counterweight to China and Pakistan), but it has much more aggressively promoted itself as an emerging economic powerhouse and a moral, democratic alternative to less savory authoritarian regimes. Attacking a fledgling democratic Pakistan would not improve India’s reputation in anybody’s eyes.

The restraint Manmohan Singh’s government has exercised following the attacks indicates a desire to avoid rash and potentially regrettable actions. It is also perhaps a recognition that military attacks will never end terrorism. Pakistan, on the other hand, couldn’t possibly win a war against India, and Pakistan’s military defeat would surely lead to the downfall of the new democratic government. The military would regain control, and Islamic militants would surely make a grab for power – an outcome neither India nor Pakistan want. Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has shown that this is not the path he wants his country to go down. He has forcefully spoken out against terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and has ordered military attacks against LeT camps. Key members of LeT and other terrorist groups have been arrested. One can hope that this is only the beginning, despite the unenviable military and political difficulties in doing so.

2. Since the last major India-Pakistan clash in 1999, both countries have made concrete efforts to create people-to-people connections and to improve economic relations. Bus and train services between the countries have resumed for the first time in decades along with an easing of the issuing of visas to cross the border. India-Pakistan cricket matches have resumed, and India has granted Pakistan “most favored nation” trading status. The Mumbai attacks will undoubtedly strain relations, yet it is hard to believe that both sides would throw away this recent progress. With the removal of Pervez Musharraf and the election of a democratic government (though a shaky, relatively weak one), both the Indian government and the Pakistani government have political motivations to ease tensions and to proceed with efforts to improve relations. There are also growing efforts to recognize and build upon the many cultural ties between the populations of India and Pakistan and a decreasing sense of animosity between the countries.

3. Both countries also face difficult internal problems that present more of a threat to their stability and security than does the opposite country. If they are wise, the governments of both countries will work more towards addressing these internal threats than the less dangerous external ones. The most significant problems facing Pakistan today do not revolve around the unresolved situation in Kashmir or a military threat posed by India. The more significant threat to Pakistan comes from within. While LeT has focused its firepower on India instead of the Pakistani state, other militant Islamic outfits have not.

Groups based in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan have orchestrated frequent deadly suicide bombings and clashes with the Pakistani military, including the attack that killed ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. The battle that the Pakistani government faces now is not against its traditional enemy India, but against militants bent on destroying the Pakistani state and creating a Taliban-style regime in Pakistan. In order to deal with this threat, it must strengthen the structures of a democratic, inclusive political system that can also address domestic problems and inequalities. On the other hand, the threat of Pakistani based terrorists to India is significant. However, suicide bombings and attacks are also carried out by Indian Islamic militants, and vast swaths of rural India are under the de facto control of the Maoist guerrillas known as the Naxalites. Hindu fundamentalists pose a serious threat to the safety of many Muslim and Christian Indians and to the idea of India as a diverse, secular, democratic society. Separatist insurgencies in Kashmir and in parts of the northeast have dragged on for years. And like Pakistan, India faces significant challenges in addressing sharp social and economic inequalities. Additionally, Indian political parties, especially the ruling Congress Party and others that rely on the support of India’s massive Muslim population to win elections, are certainly wary about inflaming public opinion against Pakistan (and Muslims). This fear could lead the investigation into the Mumbai attacks to fizzle out with no resolution, as many other such inquiries have.

4. The international attention to this attack – somewhat difficult to explain in my opinion given the general complacency and utter apathy in much of the western world about previous terrorist attacks in places like India, Pakistan, and Indonesia – is a final obstacle to an armed conflict. Not only does it put both countries under a microscope in terms of how they respond to the terrible events, it also means that they will feel international pressure to resolve the situation without resorting to war. India and Pakistan have been warned by the US, Russia, and others not to let the situation end in war. India has been actively recruiting Pakistan’s closest allies – China and Saudi Arabia – to pressure Pakistan to act against militants, and the US has been in the forefront of pressing Pakistan for action. Iran too has expressed solidarity with India in the face of the attacks and is using its regional influence to bring more diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

Still, however unlikely, it must be said that an unforeseen constellation of unfortunate events and colossally stupid decisions could result in war. Just before Christmas, Pakistan began moving military forces from the west where they had been engaging the Taliban to its eastern border with India as tensions between the two countries rose, despite recent conciliatory gestures on both sides.  However, because of the reasons outlined above, one can hope that both India and Pakistan will continue to aggressively engage in diplomacy, intelligence sharing, and military cooperation to cripple the types of organizations that have carried out the heinous attacks in Mumbai, and who threaten both countries.  If these efforts are fruitful, peace is indeed possible. War is not imminent.

Sometimes, Terrorism Doesn’t Happen to the United States

Joshua Micah Marshall made a good point yesterday: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that there may be some intelligence indicating that the Mumbai terrorists were plotting to kill “Americans and Britons.” But all the evidence points to the contrary. Mumbai was attacked due to its prominence, not the amount of westerners there. According to accounts of the violence, the terrorists appeared to be firing indiscriminately, not targeting particular people. Their purpose was to incite general terror with a “no one is safe” tone.

Is it American arrogance that makes Secretary Gates think that the purpose of the attack was to target Americans? Partially; American ubiquity demands it. Just like American clothing and pop culture is everywhere in the world, so too must American tragedies be recognized and venerated, and whenever a roughly analogous local tragedy happens, that tragedy must be understood through the lens of the American tragedy. In this case, since the local tragedy was terrorism, the American analogue is September 11.

President Bush (and now the rest of the country) seems to think that the Sept. 11 attacks were the first time any country has ever dealt with terrorist attacks on its own soil, and furthermore, that the United States, as a result of those attacks, is the only country that has experience dealing with terrorists. Prior to Bush’s tenure in office, the United States was not so cocky: of course we knew that Ireland has been dealing with terrorism since the 1920s, that Israel and Spain have been dealing with it since the 1960s, that India itself has been dealing with it from the Tamil Tigers, Kashmir separatists, and both Hindu and Muslim nationalists. Everyone seems to have forgotten, though, that the United States is not the world’s expert on dealing with terrorism.

So, no, it’s not likely that the attacks in Mumbai were designed to target Americans. But in order for the United States to lay claim to a War on Terrorism, it must lay claim to every instance of terrorism that occurs in the world in order to assert a leadership role in that war. The Bush administration has used the September 11 attacks as a throughway by which the United States may assert a “Me, too!” role in worldwide terrorism, even if the terrorism didn’t directly impact the United States.

It could be called the Cheney Doctrine after Vice President Cheney’s pronouncement earlier this year that the United States has a right to invade any country in the world, even if that country didn’t directly harm the United States, if the United States thinks that country has the capability or intent of harming the United States. Of course, the doctrine is nothing more than a unilateral pronouncement by Cheney and does not have the effect of law, but at least it shows us what he’s thinking. It’s the foreign policy equivalent of the “interstate commerce” clause, the section of the Constitution that has been interpreted so broadly as to allow Congress to control any aspect of business that could conceivably or theoretically impact interstate commerce (protecting endangered species in waterways that, through a series of even small creeks, eventually drain into interstate rivers, for example).

Diplomatic Implications

The United States would especially like to stick its nose into relations between Pakistan and India. Al-Qaeda is or was hiding in Pakistan on the Afghanistan border. Former president Pervez Musharraf didn’t send the military up there to investigate for fear of alienating those populations. The new Pakistani government will not be as America-friendly as the last one, since the United States supported the unpopular Musharraf. Without Musharraf, the United States has no reason or authority to be involved in India/Pakistan relations. Using the terrorism angle allows the United States to remain involved in that relationship.

We still think we are the gatekeepers to all the world’s diplomacy: no one anywhere in the world can have any bilateral talks without inviting the United States, as well. Every talk is necessarily multilateral because every relationship between any people anywhere in the world is relevant to the United States. It’s time for us to get over this attitude. When James Monroe asserted U.S. diplomatic hegemony in the Western hemisphere — essentially telling the rest of the world that, if you wanted to deal with Latin America, you had to go through the U.S. first — the arrogance was apparent, but at least it was confined to America’s sphere of influence in the world.

As the United States’ diplomatic clout has waned — particularly under the watchful eye of the Bush administration — its ability to assert leadership roles in negotiations in which it has no stake has similarly waned. Thankfully, there will always be the War on Terrorism there to insist that, by virtue of the United States being attacked on September 11, and its self-proclaimed doctrine of warfare against terrorism, the United States automatically has a stake in any negotiation that may even be tangentially related to terrorism.

It is a gross disservice to the people in Mumbai who were killed, wounded, and terrorized to narcissistically focus their tragedy in terms of our tragedy. Perhaps going through the same kind of event allows Americans to better understand what Indians are feeling right now, but we should no more shift the focus to our own attack any more than we would eulogize our own losses at someone else’s funeral.

China Bails Out Its People

Faced with declining exports due lower demand from many western countries entering recession, China’s central command has announced an economic stimulus plan of 586 billion dollars. Unlike the United States and many European countries, China will not be bailing out its banks, but rather investing in much needed infrastructure and social programs. Having 2 trillion dollars in reserves and owning much of the western world’s debt, this is definitely something China can afford to do.

This spending, which includes much needed rural infrastructure, disaster relief, and environmental cleanup funds, is long overdue. Nowhere, with the possible exception of India, are the disparities between urban and rural areas higher. In addition, the government was horrible in its response to the Sichuan earthquake this past May, which killed 700,000 people. However delayed and sterile the response, it made the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina look superb.

For too long, China has had no accountability and has been corrupted by incompetent local fiefdoms. This has led to virtual ignorance on the part of the central command toward regional and local governments until something goes wrong. Then, when something goes wrong, it usually goes horribly wrong, as is the case with the recent tainted milk scandal. What happens when something goes wrong? Horrible overreaction on the part of the central government of course. Does any of the above sound familiar? Perhaps it reminds you of the laissez-faire governance, ensuing disaster, and resulting overreaction seen in the recent financial crisis in the United States?

Virtual laissez-faire governance and capitalism in communist China? Dear God, where have all the global stereotypes gone? Next thing we know, people will be accusing George W. Bush of being a communist. Oh wait, never mind. Well, at least China is investing in its people rather than bailing out its banks.

Keeping an Eye on Kim

Yes, our economy is teetering on the brink of collapse; yes, we have a presidential election, Congressional election, and local election looming; sure, prices are up, wages are down, and people are concerned about getting from paycheck to paycheck. We still have two wars occurring, billions being poured into the Middle East, and little progress to show for it. Americans as a whole—the media, the government, and the public—seem to have forgotten a key event, though.

Kim Jung Il stroked out.

Almost three weeks ago.

This turn of events—and its being buried by domestic concerns—is a key concern for both the Bush administration and the soon-to-be President-elect. Not only is the face-man for a burgeoning nuclear power now incapacitated at best—the current best guess is that Mr. Kim is paralyzed—and dead at worst, but our own government, who decried North Korea as a member of the “Axis of Evil” and considers a non-nuclear North Korea a key part of its regional security strategy, has either overlooked or underestimated the gravity of the situation. As regional stability is concerned, Mr. Kim’s medical condition is a critical issue upon which diplomatic negotiations must be based; if he’s no longer in charge, our current policies may no longer be applicable.

Think of it this way: with Kim, the U.S. knew who it was dealing with. He was the Decider in a very literal sense; he was the brain and the heart of North Korean foreign policy. Without knowing the details of Mr. Kim’s condition, or even if the man’s still alive, the United States—and the world as a whole—needs to consider the possibility that the Dear Leader is no longer the leading man in North Korea; further, the State Department must devise a set of practical, easy-to-implement diplomatic contingencies for the likely political turmoil that Mr. Kim’s death would instigate. In the event of his death, the resulting power vacuum could ultimately lead to anything from reunification with the South to a civil war (possibly between Kim Yung Nan, the “number two” in North Korea, and other members of Mr. Kim’s inner circle) and a new, more brutal and more opaque regime. In any case, the United States should see this as both a political opportunity and as a key national security issue, and it should consider gathering intelligence on Mr. Kim’s condition a top priority.

« Previous Page