Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of non-violence might have humbled the British empire of yesteryear, but such subtlety and discretion have little to no effect in this age of terrorism. India’s lack of a military response to the “26/11” Mumbai attacks might have gained it credibility in the western world but have made it appear weak and ineffective in its own backyard. China’s recent verbal saber-rattling over its long-standing border dispute with India is a case in point.
The world discerns between India’s post-26/11 fatalism and America’s post-9/11 realism. However, if India wants to be seriously considered as a major economic and military power in the 21st century, it needs to revamp its 20th century “non-aligned” foreign policy just like it overhauled its antiquated socialist economic model in 1991. India’s economic gains since then are clearly visible to the world; however, its inability to simultaneously defend itself against modern-day terrorism and communist China’s expansionist designs has the potential to mire it in an eternal crisis that can only suppress its growth as a 21st century power.
As far the United States is concerned, there are two significant reasons that it needs to revisit its Cold War foreign policy paradigm:
1. Thirty-odd years of economic engagement with China has not resulted in a concomitant shift in China’s totalitarian political structure – the U.S. should have embarked on a mid-course correction in its China policy shortly after the end of the Cold War in 1991. China’s unchecked power and blatant ambition could result in a New Cold War situation with the western world in the next couple of decades.
2. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S. not only abandoned Pakistan, but further slapped it with the Pressler Amendment sanctions – which banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President certified annually that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons. Any attempt to mollify Pakistan after two decades of neglect will eventually prove to be a waste of time and energy – the Pakistani people no longer trust the U.S. and never will.
Notwithstanding Pakistan’s current offensive against its own homegrown Taliban, it remains a fragile democracy that can be usurped at any time by its powerful military. As soon as President Obama starts winding down military operations in Afghanistan next year, we will see an attendant increase in Pakistan’s meddlesome activities along its eastern border with India. Based on China’s ongoing problems with the United States and India, Pakistan must already be hedging its bets – by renewing old ties with and seeking longer term refuge under Beijing’s expanding Asia-Pacific umbrella.
Thus, in this rapidly evolving new power structure, it only makes sense that the U.S. seek stronger ties with like-minded nations in the Asia-Pacific region – that go beyond its traditional Cold War allies such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. It is imperative for the United States and India to become more closely aligned from a political, economic, technological and military standpoint. Keeping the world’s oldest and largest democracies together – in a new long term “axis of faith” partnership – should become the foundation of 21st century U.S. foreign policy.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Pallin Around With Palin
It was a month ago on 9/11 that I posted my imaginary interview (see “The Real McCoy”) with Senator McCain. Since then, his running mate, Governor Palin flubbed a few sit-downs with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’ Katie Couric. Consequently, the McCain campaign decided that Palin was off limits to the mainstream media until after the election. However, the American public was given to understand that Governor Palin would still meet with conservative and small town wannabe journalists. Unfortunately, I am not your average Joe Sixpack pundit that the Governor would be comfortable with. In fact, I am that potent combination of a liberal with an Ivy League graduate degree – so I am pretty sure that she won’t talk to me. Alas, as I did with Senator McCain, I need to fake my interview with the lovely Ms. Palin. So here goes…
Jack: It’s a pleasure to meet you in person…
Sarah Palin: Can we get started? I have half-a-dozen of you wannabes lined up this morning, and you are only my first.
Jack: OK! Back in June you told Larry Kudlow of CNBC that you were not sure “what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Now that you have been a VP candidate for over six weeks, do you know any better?
Sarah Palin: Well, if I am so blessed, and Senator McCain is so blessed… I expect that he has a role in mind, which will fulfill the maverick image that he and I have earned as two mavericks. We will reform Washington as two outsiders on a mission to…
Jack: But, Sarah. Excuse me; can I call you, Sarah? You see I have this joke, I mean, this question lined up later on that requires me to call you Sarah. So is that OK, Sarah?
Sarah Palin: Whatever, Jack? Your interview is not going to make it into the mainstream media, anyway, so you can call me whatever your puny readership desires…
Jack: Thanks, Sarah! But you just called Senator McCain an outsider when he has been a beltway insider for, like 26 years… what’s up with that?
Sarah Palin: Jack, Jack, Jack… Senator McCain has always been an outsider to members of his own party. In fact, he was going to pick that matzo ball, Lieberman, as his VP. Oops, silly me, cross that matzo ball thingy as off the record. Never mind, no one is going to read you, anyway… so, you see McCain has always been on the inside looking out!
Jack: But that still makes him an insider, so how is he going to reform anything?
Sarah Palin: Because he is going to bring all these outsiders and mavericks into Washington and reform the place. The man’s a maverick just like me…
Jack: OK, moving on… at a recent campaign rally, you said of Joe Biden, “I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade.” Sarah, Joe Biden entered the Senate in January 1973, when you were almost nine years old. At nine, most kids are in fourth grade, so did you like repeat…
Sarah Palin: Jack, I was joking… but seriously, what have you heard?
Jack: That you went to six different colleges before you graduated from your “own private Idaho?”
Sarah Palin: Ha! Ha! Very funny, Jack! What else you got?
Jack: Have?
Sarah Palin: What?
Jack: What else do you have?
Sarah Palin: Whatever…
Jack: Your older sister, Heather Bruce, told Glamour magazine recently that “What’s happening to Sarah Palin right now is like the worst college exam cram period ever.” Do you believe this is a fair way – essentially pulling a few all-nighters – to land a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Sarah Palin: Hey if Dubya got by for eight years, so can I. Besides, it can only get better, right? (At this point in my interview, Sarah concludes her answer by winking her left eye at me).
Jack: Are you trying to seduce me, Ms. Robinson?
Sarah Palin: Say what?
Jack: You just winked at me, so I remembered that famous line from “The Graduate?”
Sarah Palin: That movie was, like, so before my time…
Jack: Never mind. Let’s move on. In a recent campaign appearance you said that Senator Obama is “palling around with terrorists.” Don’t you think that was beyond the pale?
Sarah Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Jack: I’m Jack…
Sarah Palin: Sorry, I had a flashback to Charlie Gibson for a moment there … Hmm… beyond the pale… Jack, are you making fun of my last name? Todd is standing right outside… he does not like people who make fun…
Jack: Sarah, ‘beyond the pale’ means over the top…
Sarah Palin: Then why didn’t you just say so, like we do in small-town America? Did you go to one of those fancy Ivy League schools like Obama?
Jack: Do you think it’s fair to associate Obama with a guy who was a terrorist forty years ago, when Obama was only eight?
Sarah Palin: Yes, because the guy helped launch Obama’s political career more recently back in the mid-90s.
Jack: So that is the same as “pallin” around? Sarah, your husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from the mid-90s until 2002. Isn’t your husband’s recent association with a secessionist party more egregious than Obama serving as one of the members of an education board, which happened to include a long rehabilitated ex-terrorist?
Sarah Palin: What’s your point, Jack? The people of Alaska still voted for me as their Governor.
Jack: Hey, maybe they all want to hook up with Russia! Who knows? Fifteen years from now I could say that I was “pallin” around with you just because of this one fake interview?
Sarah Palin: Hey, I am not looking beyond this election right now. Fifteen years is a long time in politics. What else you got?
Jack: Is it true that you told Bill Kristol that you wanted Senator McCain to take the gloves off?
Sarah Palin: Sure. He needs to bring up that Wright stuff, too!
Jack: I don’t think you want to go there, given that you are all over YouTube getting exorcised by a witch doctor from Africa?
Sarah Palin: Oh well, that pastor was getting rid of my demons, not demonizing my country!
Jack: What demons?
Sarah Palin: That’s personal, Jack.
Jack: OK. I would like you to answer this last question without using any one of the following words: bridge, maverick, reform, surge, victory, and exceptional. OK, why do you think Senator McCain will make a better president than Senator Obama?
Sarah Palin: Umm… because he always puts his country first!
Jack: But, you heard Obama say at his convention speech, “We all put our country first..."
Sarah Palin: I’d love to debate you, Jack, but that was your last question. Hey, Todd, can you show Jack out the door and send in the next wannabe… and get me an aspirin…
Jack: Thank you, Sara… When you build your house, call me home…
Sarah Palin: What? Todd, this guy is weird…
Todd Palin: That’s Fleetwood Mac, honey…
Jack: Don't stop (thinking about tomorrow)…
Folks, she could actually turn out to be our next Vice President! And you thought it couldn’t get any scarier after Cheney!
Jack: It’s a pleasure to meet you in person…
Sarah Palin: Can we get started? I have half-a-dozen of you wannabes lined up this morning, and you are only my first.
Jack: OK! Back in June you told Larry Kudlow of CNBC that you were not sure “what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Now that you have been a VP candidate for over six weeks, do you know any better?
Sarah Palin: Well, if I am so blessed, and Senator McCain is so blessed… I expect that he has a role in mind, which will fulfill the maverick image that he and I have earned as two mavericks. We will reform Washington as two outsiders on a mission to…
Jack: But, Sarah. Excuse me; can I call you, Sarah? You see I have this joke, I mean, this question lined up later on that requires me to call you Sarah. So is that OK, Sarah?
Sarah Palin: Whatever, Jack? Your interview is not going to make it into the mainstream media, anyway, so you can call me whatever your puny readership desires…
Jack: Thanks, Sarah! But you just called Senator McCain an outsider when he has been a beltway insider for, like 26 years… what’s up with that?
Sarah Palin: Jack, Jack, Jack… Senator McCain has always been an outsider to members of his own party. In fact, he was going to pick that matzo ball, Lieberman, as his VP. Oops, silly me, cross that matzo ball thingy as off the record. Never mind, no one is going to read you, anyway… so, you see McCain has always been on the inside looking out!
Jack: But that still makes him an insider, so how is he going to reform anything?
Sarah Palin: Because he is going to bring all these outsiders and mavericks into Washington and reform the place. The man’s a maverick just like me…
Jack: OK, moving on… at a recent campaign rally, you said of Joe Biden, “I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade.” Sarah, Joe Biden entered the Senate in January 1973, when you were almost nine years old. At nine, most kids are in fourth grade, so did you like repeat…
Sarah Palin: Jack, I was joking… but seriously, what have you heard?
Jack: That you went to six different colleges before you graduated from your “own private Idaho?”
Sarah Palin: Ha! Ha! Very funny, Jack! What else you got?
Jack: Have?
Sarah Palin: What?
Jack: What else do you have?
Sarah Palin: Whatever…
Jack: Your older sister, Heather Bruce, told Glamour magazine recently that “What’s happening to Sarah Palin right now is like the worst college exam cram period ever.” Do you believe this is a fair way – essentially pulling a few all-nighters – to land a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Sarah Palin: Hey if Dubya got by for eight years, so can I. Besides, it can only get better, right? (At this point in my interview, Sarah concludes her answer by winking her left eye at me).
Jack: Are you trying to seduce me, Ms. Robinson?
Sarah Palin: Say what?
Jack: You just winked at me, so I remembered that famous line from “The Graduate?”
Sarah Palin: That movie was, like, so before my time…
Jack: Never mind. Let’s move on. In a recent campaign appearance you said that Senator Obama is “palling around with terrorists.” Don’t you think that was beyond the pale?
Sarah Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Jack: I’m Jack…
Sarah Palin: Sorry, I had a flashback to Charlie Gibson for a moment there … Hmm… beyond the pale… Jack, are you making fun of my last name? Todd is standing right outside… he does not like people who make fun…
Jack: Sarah, ‘beyond the pale’ means over the top…
Sarah Palin: Then why didn’t you just say so, like we do in small-town America? Did you go to one of those fancy Ivy League schools like Obama?
Jack: Do you think it’s fair to associate Obama with a guy who was a terrorist forty years ago, when Obama was only eight?
Sarah Palin: Yes, because the guy helped launch Obama’s political career more recently back in the mid-90s.
Jack: So that is the same as “pallin” around? Sarah, your husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from the mid-90s until 2002. Isn’t your husband’s recent association with a secessionist party more egregious than Obama serving as one of the members of an education board, which happened to include a long rehabilitated ex-terrorist?
Sarah Palin: What’s your point, Jack? The people of Alaska still voted for me as their Governor.
Jack: Hey, maybe they all want to hook up with Russia! Who knows? Fifteen years from now I could say that I was “pallin” around with you just because of this one fake interview?
Sarah Palin: Hey, I am not looking beyond this election right now. Fifteen years is a long time in politics. What else you got?
Jack: Is it true that you told Bill Kristol that you wanted Senator McCain to take the gloves off?
Sarah Palin: Sure. He needs to bring up that Wright stuff, too!
Jack: I don’t think you want to go there, given that you are all over YouTube getting exorcised by a witch doctor from Africa?
Sarah Palin: Oh well, that pastor was getting rid of my demons, not demonizing my country!
Jack: What demons?
Sarah Palin: That’s personal, Jack.
Jack: OK. I would like you to answer this last question without using any one of the following words: bridge, maverick, reform, surge, victory, and exceptional. OK, why do you think Senator McCain will make a better president than Senator Obama?
Sarah Palin: Umm… because he always puts his country first!
Jack: But, you heard Obama say at his convention speech, “We all put our country first..."
Sarah Palin: I’d love to debate you, Jack, but that was your last question. Hey, Todd, can you show Jack out the door and send in the next wannabe… and get me an aspirin…
Jack: Thank you, Sara… When you build your house, call me home…
Sarah Palin: What? Todd, this guy is weird…
Todd Palin: That’s Fleetwood Mac, honey…
Jack: Don't stop (thinking about tomorrow)…
Folks, she could actually turn out to be our next Vice President! And you thought it couldn’t get any scarier after Cheney!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Real McCoy
The Internet has become the great equalizer, in that; it has empowered so many people in so many professions in so many ways. Google has given new meaning to the saying, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” YouTube has redefined what we mean by “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Bloggers have neutralized the news cycle by publishing “All the News That's Fit to Print” on a 24/7 basis.
And yet, there is not a Google search item, not one YouTube video, and nary a blog post that brings out the real Senator McCain. So I have decided to publish this satirical take on my alleged tête-à-tête with the Senator. Here’s how I think my faux conversation would expose the real McCoy:
Jack: Senator, let’s cut to the chase… have you heard of the saying “The more things change, the more they remain the same?”
McCain: Yes, but are you trying to suggest something…
Jack: Nothing. How long have you been in Washington?
McCain: I have been in Congress since 1983… I began as a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution…
Jack: Yeah, it’s quite amazing how you went from being a well-decorated, retired Navy captain to start out all over again as an ordinary foot-soldier in Congress.
McCain: I have paid my dues, my friend.
Jack: O.K., but many presidential candidates have promised to change Washington in the past 25 years, so how are you any different?
McCain: The others let Washington change ’em. Washington won’t change me. I am the same guy I was 25 years ago. I am set in my ways.
Jack: So you haven’t changed, but you will change Washington?
McCain: Damn straight!
Jack: How do you propose to do that?
McCain: I will veto every earmark that comes across my desk.
Jack: You realize that you will be likely working with a strong Democratic majority in both branches of Congress?
McCain: Yes, but I am determined to approve only pork-free bills.
Jack: Wow! Are you trying to appease the Muslims…
McCain: Very funny, Jack! Everyone’s a comedian…
Jack: But seriously, the last president to veto too many bills lasted only one term – your predecessor’s father – remember, “Read my lips…”
McCain: Of course, but he lost because he raised taxes, not because he vetoed bills!
Jack: Clinton raised taxes and vetoed bills – and still served two terms that saw unprecedented peace and prosperity?
McCain: That is because Clinton had a Republican Congress…
Jack: Reagan worked with a largely Democratic Congress…
McCain: Yeah, but they gave him what he wanted…
Jack: I would imagine that the GOP Congress gave Clinton what he wanted…
McCain: Look Jack, what’s your point?
Jack: You can’t bring about change by veto, especially with a Congress run by the other party.
McCain: My friend, I know how the system works, and I intend to change it. Period.
Jack: O.K. So you are going to change the meaning of “change?”
McCain: Exactly! Wait a minute – is that a trick question? Look, my friend, the Democrats are big spenders and they will insist on all their pork-barrel projects. Hillary with her healthcare plan – no amount of lipstick on that pig will get me to ever agree…
Jack: Excuse me, did you just call Hillary a pig?
McCain: Of course not! I was talking about her healthcare plan…
Jack: Just like Obama was talking about all your plans the other day…
McCain: No, no he was talking about Sarah – we even made an ad about it, so that the American people would know him for the Muslim that he is. You do know that Muslims consider pigs unholy and dirty, right? Why else, would he call Sarah a pig?
Jack: That is absolutely not true – are you trying to Swift boat the poor guy?
McCain: That is the only way we are going to win, my friend! I tried the “experience” thing first , then usurped the “change” mantle from Obama even though I don’t believe in it for a second. Heck, I have been a part of this old boy network for 25 years – why would I want to change anything now, when I am 72 years old. Hey, Obama threw us a freebie with this pig line – we are going to ride that baby to victory in November! All’s fair in love and politics!
Jack: Thank you, Senator McCain for the straight talk – you are the real McCoy!
P.S. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am guilty of using the self-same term, “lipstick on a pig,” as can be evidenced by my letter to the Wall Street Journal dated October 15, 2007.
And yet, there is not a Google search item, not one YouTube video, and nary a blog post that brings out the real Senator McCain. So I have decided to publish this satirical take on my alleged tête-à-tête with the Senator. Here’s how I think my faux conversation would expose the real McCoy:
Jack: Senator, let’s cut to the chase… have you heard of the saying “The more things change, the more they remain the same?”
McCain: Yes, but are you trying to suggest something…
Jack: Nothing. How long have you been in Washington?
McCain: I have been in Congress since 1983… I began as a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution…
Jack: Yeah, it’s quite amazing how you went from being a well-decorated, retired Navy captain to start out all over again as an ordinary foot-soldier in Congress.
McCain: I have paid my dues, my friend.
Jack: O.K., but many presidential candidates have promised to change Washington in the past 25 years, so how are you any different?
McCain: The others let Washington change ’em. Washington won’t change me. I am the same guy I was 25 years ago. I am set in my ways.
Jack: So you haven’t changed, but you will change Washington?
McCain: Damn straight!
Jack: How do you propose to do that?
McCain: I will veto every earmark that comes across my desk.
Jack: You realize that you will be likely working with a strong Democratic majority in both branches of Congress?
McCain: Yes, but I am determined to approve only pork-free bills.
Jack: Wow! Are you trying to appease the Muslims…
McCain: Very funny, Jack! Everyone’s a comedian…
Jack: But seriously, the last president to veto too many bills lasted only one term – your predecessor’s father – remember, “Read my lips…”
McCain: Of course, but he lost because he raised taxes, not because he vetoed bills!
Jack: Clinton raised taxes and vetoed bills – and still served two terms that saw unprecedented peace and prosperity?
McCain: That is because Clinton had a Republican Congress…
Jack: Reagan worked with a largely Democratic Congress…
McCain: Yeah, but they gave him what he wanted…
Jack: I would imagine that the GOP Congress gave Clinton what he wanted…
McCain: Look Jack, what’s your point?
Jack: You can’t bring about change by veto, especially with a Congress run by the other party.
McCain: My friend, I know how the system works, and I intend to change it. Period.
Jack: O.K. So you are going to change the meaning of “change?”
McCain: Exactly! Wait a minute – is that a trick question? Look, my friend, the Democrats are big spenders and they will insist on all their pork-barrel projects. Hillary with her healthcare plan – no amount of lipstick on that pig will get me to ever agree…
Jack: Excuse me, did you just call Hillary a pig?
McCain: Of course not! I was talking about her healthcare plan…
Jack: Just like Obama was talking about all your plans the other day…
McCain: No, no he was talking about Sarah – we even made an ad about it, so that the American people would know him for the Muslim that he is. You do know that Muslims consider pigs unholy and dirty, right? Why else, would he call Sarah a pig?
Jack: That is absolutely not true – are you trying to Swift boat the poor guy?
McCain: That is the only way we are going to win, my friend! I tried the “experience” thing first , then usurped the “change” mantle from Obama even though I don’t believe in it for a second. Heck, I have been a part of this old boy network for 25 years – why would I want to change anything now, when I am 72 years old. Hey, Obama threw us a freebie with this pig line – we are going to ride that baby to victory in November! All’s fair in love and politics!
Jack: Thank you, Senator McCain for the straight talk – you are the real McCoy!
P.S. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am guilty of using the self-same term, “lipstick on a pig,” as can be evidenced by my letter to the Wall Street Journal dated October 15, 2007.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Avoiding Déjà vu All Over Again In U.S. Foreign Policy
(This article was written during the Thanksgiving weekend, but is only being published now. General Musharraf is now "President" Musharraf - but given the circumstances of his transformation, these titles have no meaningful distinction, so I reproduce my original article as is.)
Since its creation sixty years ago, Pakistan has alternated between democracy and military rule every decade or so. So how many times are we going to watch a rerun of the same old movie, in which the U.S. government chooses to support a military dictatorship in Pakistan with money and arms rather than help its people sustain a liberal democracy? And, we choose to do this because it happens to serve our short-term interests better than it does their long-term future? While Pakistan has always been an invaluable ally in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy from the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of the 1980s to the Bush Doctrine of the 2000s, it invariably ends up as a discarded by-product when these doctrines have run their course.
President Bush must surely make a poor poker player. In June 2001, he misread the "honesty" of Russia's Putin by looking into his eyes to get a sense of his soul, which then subsequently proved to be non-existent. After 9/11 he similarly bought into the "sincerity" of Pakistan's Musharraf, who has also betrayed him by his recent actions. General Musharraf has turned out to be a run-of-the-mill dictator that Pakistan routinely produces every decade or so. Musharraf has repeatedly spoken the anti-terrorism language that Bush likes to hear, while acting consistently in an anti-democratic manner during his illegal reign. In this post-9/11 decade, the Bush Administration has spent almost $10 billion to-date on General Musharraf in the vain hopes that he would actually help us win the "war on terror" against an Al Qaeda-Taliban axis that permeates a significant yet nebulous cross-section of Afghani-Pakistani society.
Meanwhile the Bush Administration has more or less ignored the Pakistani people's ever increasing demands for a more meaningful democracy. Hollywood will soon release "Charlie Wilson's War," a movie which depicts how the U.S. coddled another Pakistani military dictator back in the 1980s – in order to get his support in throwing the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Ironically, after Pakistan had helped the U.S. achieve that important goal in 1989, the elder President Bush rewarded them by withholding deliveries of F-16 fighter jets as necessitated by the 1990 Pressler Amendment. Despite the Pressler sanctions, in 1998 Pakistan defiantly carried out its first nuclear test, which forced President Clinton to impose sanctions on a fragile nation in the waning phase of its democratic decade.
In the post-Soviet 1990s, Pakistan also helped an idling Afghan mujaheddin coalesce into the Taliban, which then usurped power in Afghanistan. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan up until 9/11 with an extremist ideology that included succor for Al Qaeda with the tacit support of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) branch of Pakistan's Army. Following 9/11, President Bush struck a Faustian bargain with Pakistan's relatively new military dictator, General Musharraf. In return for cash, arms, and the support of the U.S. government, President Bush sought Musharraf's assistance in crushing the very same Taliban, which Pakistan's military had previously helped create and flourish! Why the Bush Administration ever deemed this to be a winning proposition boggles the mind?
One of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, had defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So when is the U.S. foreign policy establishment going to realize that we need to pursue lasting relationships based on our core values and that we should not repeatedly experiment with unprincipled dalliances of convenience? If U.S. foreign policy continues to placate WMD-possessing military dictators, such as Pakistan's Musharraf and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, while sanctioning or attacking WMD-seeking despots, such as Iran's Ahmedinejad and Iraq's now-deceased Saddam Hussein, then we are only going to hasten the WMD acquisition process amongst so-called rogue nations. More importantly, such a dubious policy makes the U.S. lose credibility in the eyes of the world. Especially in the case of Pakistan, which – despite selling its nuclear technology to rogue nations such as Iran, Libya and North Korea – was seen by the world as getting a free pass from the Bush Administration?
Senator Biden was absolutely right when he suggested that the Bush Administration had a tunnel-vision "Musharraf policy" as opposed to a broad-based "Pakistan policy." It is highly likely that if General Musharraf really starts to feel pressured, he will direct his ISI to instigate suicide bombings – not in the Afghan border region, but near the line of control that demarcates India and Pakistan in Kashmir. The Pakistani military has always had this time-tested way to quickly unite Pakistanis and rev up patriotic fervor – by accusing neighboring India of "exploiting" a volatile situation in Pakistan. In fact, General Musharraf could even have his Army engage in a few border skirmishes with India to distract Pakistani attention from his domestic troubles – this too has been done before.
Nonetheless, the U.S. can no longer afford to maintain a double standard in its dealings with Pakistan – seeking to ensure the stability of this nuclear-armed dictatorship in the short-term at the expense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its people in the long term – because this will eventually turn out to be a losing proposition for both sides. Sadly, our 1980s paradigm will not help resolve the current crisis in Pakistan. At least back then, Pakistan's military dictator, General Zia, was actually helping us fight a common enemy (the Soviets). This time around, General Musharraf has suppressed the very symbols of Pakistani democracy – judges, lawyers, the media and opposition leaders – while the bad guys (Al Qaeda-Taliban) continue to openly and freely consolidate their strength.
However, it is not too late to refocus U.S. policy in Pakistan towards freedom and democracy – especially since promoting these core American values were the stated objectives of the Bush second term. Such a policy change is all the more imperative because it is the moderate and literate elements of Pakistani society that are clamoring for democracy and the rule of law. The great Pakistani paradox, which demands the reconciling of a functioning liberal democracy with the seemingly conflicting demands of an orthodox Muslim theology, can only be resolved by the duly elected moderate factions in its society. Pakistan could yet become a shining example of a Muslim democracy, provided its military stops intervening every time it foresees or fakes a "crisis." We would much rather have a nuclear-armed Pakistan run by prudent civilians than by an unpredictable army or some of its more extremist elements. This is the only way we can hope to bring real stability to that critical part of the world.
Thus President Bush should refrain from aiding Pakistan's collapse by sending any more ambiguous messages to General Musharraf. He might recall how a similar lack of clarity on the elder Bush’s part prompted Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990 – the long term repercussions of which President Bush is still dealing with today. In two of the past three decades, military dictators have happened to rule Pakistan when acquiescing Republican presidents have occupied the White House. General Zia received as much support from the Reagan Administration in the 1980s as General Musharraf has from the Bush Administration in the 2000s.
Yet Musharraf must already be looking beyond the Bush presidency. He probably recognizes that if a Democratic Administration takes over from Bush, it will be less tolerant of the status quo in Pakistan. So General Musharraf will try to continue to consolidate his hold on power over the next fourteen months. And, he is doing so by adopting a classic line from the Bush playbook – claiming that he is "temporarily" trading liberty for security in Pakistan's ongoing assistance with Bush’s "war on terror" – which seems to be receiving sympathetic consideration from the Bush Administration.
In a November 2003 address at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush had proclaimed, "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo."
President Bush must surely realize that as long as our foreign policy continues to accommodate friendly dictators in allied Muslim nations such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we are not going to make any real progress in the larger war on terrorism. If the president can't "walk his own talk" and continues to accept the status quo in Pakistan, how can he expect General Musharraf to behave any differently? If Musharraf is willing to pack his nation's Supreme Court with stooges and amend its constitution so that he can never be held accountable for his actions, he might as well appoint himself president for life and be done with it.
It is long past time for an American president to realize that the only way to avoid experiencing déjà vu all over again with our foreign policy is to let consistency in our principles trump the convenience of our causes, when these two ideals are in conflict. Also, in order to change hearts and minds in the Muslim world, we need to practice a less duplicitous foreign policy with our key Islamic allies. Only by refocusing our foreign policy on core American values, can we expect to make progress in Pakistan and the Muslim world. In fact, only by returning to a foreign policy that is solidly based on our cherished principles, can we regain the respect of the larger fraternity of nations? With the Annapolis summit in mind, now might be a good time for President Bush to send such an unequivocal message to the Arab world.
Since its creation sixty years ago, Pakistan has alternated between democracy and military rule every decade or so. So how many times are we going to watch a rerun of the same old movie, in which the U.S. government chooses to support a military dictatorship in Pakistan with money and arms rather than help its people sustain a liberal democracy? And, we choose to do this because it happens to serve our short-term interests better than it does their long-term future? While Pakistan has always been an invaluable ally in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy from the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of the 1980s to the Bush Doctrine of the 2000s, it invariably ends up as a discarded by-product when these doctrines have run their course.
President Bush must surely make a poor poker player. In June 2001, he misread the "honesty" of Russia's Putin by looking into his eyes to get a sense of his soul, which then subsequently proved to be non-existent. After 9/11 he similarly bought into the "sincerity" of Pakistan's Musharraf, who has also betrayed him by his recent actions. General Musharraf has turned out to be a run-of-the-mill dictator that Pakistan routinely produces every decade or so. Musharraf has repeatedly spoken the anti-terrorism language that Bush likes to hear, while acting consistently in an anti-democratic manner during his illegal reign. In this post-9/11 decade, the Bush Administration has spent almost $10 billion to-date on General Musharraf in the vain hopes that he would actually help us win the "war on terror" against an Al Qaeda-Taliban axis that permeates a significant yet nebulous cross-section of Afghani-Pakistani society.
Meanwhile the Bush Administration has more or less ignored the Pakistani people's ever increasing demands for a more meaningful democracy. Hollywood will soon release "Charlie Wilson's War," a movie which depicts how the U.S. coddled another Pakistani military dictator back in the 1980s – in order to get his support in throwing the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Ironically, after Pakistan had helped the U.S. achieve that important goal in 1989, the elder President Bush rewarded them by withholding deliveries of F-16 fighter jets as necessitated by the 1990 Pressler Amendment. Despite the Pressler sanctions, in 1998 Pakistan defiantly carried out its first nuclear test, which forced President Clinton to impose sanctions on a fragile nation in the waning phase of its democratic decade.
In the post-Soviet 1990s, Pakistan also helped an idling Afghan mujaheddin coalesce into the Taliban, which then usurped power in Afghanistan. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan up until 9/11 with an extremist ideology that included succor for Al Qaeda with the tacit support of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) branch of Pakistan's Army. Following 9/11, President Bush struck a Faustian bargain with Pakistan's relatively new military dictator, General Musharraf. In return for cash, arms, and the support of the U.S. government, President Bush sought Musharraf's assistance in crushing the very same Taliban, which Pakistan's military had previously helped create and flourish! Why the Bush Administration ever deemed this to be a winning proposition boggles the mind?
One of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, had defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So when is the U.S. foreign policy establishment going to realize that we need to pursue lasting relationships based on our core values and that we should not repeatedly experiment with unprincipled dalliances of convenience? If U.S. foreign policy continues to placate WMD-possessing military dictators, such as Pakistan's Musharraf and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, while sanctioning or attacking WMD-seeking despots, such as Iran's Ahmedinejad and Iraq's now-deceased Saddam Hussein, then we are only going to hasten the WMD acquisition process amongst so-called rogue nations. More importantly, such a dubious policy makes the U.S. lose credibility in the eyes of the world. Especially in the case of Pakistan, which – despite selling its nuclear technology to rogue nations such as Iran, Libya and North Korea – was seen by the world as getting a free pass from the Bush Administration?
Senator Biden was absolutely right when he suggested that the Bush Administration had a tunnel-vision "Musharraf policy" as opposed to a broad-based "Pakistan policy." It is highly likely that if General Musharraf really starts to feel pressured, he will direct his ISI to instigate suicide bombings – not in the Afghan border region, but near the line of control that demarcates India and Pakistan in Kashmir. The Pakistani military has always had this time-tested way to quickly unite Pakistanis and rev up patriotic fervor – by accusing neighboring India of "exploiting" a volatile situation in Pakistan. In fact, General Musharraf could even have his Army engage in a few border skirmishes with India to distract Pakistani attention from his domestic troubles – this too has been done before.
Nonetheless, the U.S. can no longer afford to maintain a double standard in its dealings with Pakistan – seeking to ensure the stability of this nuclear-armed dictatorship in the short-term at the expense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its people in the long term – because this will eventually turn out to be a losing proposition for both sides. Sadly, our 1980s paradigm will not help resolve the current crisis in Pakistan. At least back then, Pakistan's military dictator, General Zia, was actually helping us fight a common enemy (the Soviets). This time around, General Musharraf has suppressed the very symbols of Pakistani democracy – judges, lawyers, the media and opposition leaders – while the bad guys (Al Qaeda-Taliban) continue to openly and freely consolidate their strength.
However, it is not too late to refocus U.S. policy in Pakistan towards freedom and democracy – especially since promoting these core American values were the stated objectives of the Bush second term. Such a policy change is all the more imperative because it is the moderate and literate elements of Pakistani society that are clamoring for democracy and the rule of law. The great Pakistani paradox, which demands the reconciling of a functioning liberal democracy with the seemingly conflicting demands of an orthodox Muslim theology, can only be resolved by the duly elected moderate factions in its society. Pakistan could yet become a shining example of a Muslim democracy, provided its military stops intervening every time it foresees or fakes a "crisis." We would much rather have a nuclear-armed Pakistan run by prudent civilians than by an unpredictable army or some of its more extremist elements. This is the only way we can hope to bring real stability to that critical part of the world.
Thus President Bush should refrain from aiding Pakistan's collapse by sending any more ambiguous messages to General Musharraf. He might recall how a similar lack of clarity on the elder Bush’s part prompted Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990 – the long term repercussions of which President Bush is still dealing with today. In two of the past three decades, military dictators have happened to rule Pakistan when acquiescing Republican presidents have occupied the White House. General Zia received as much support from the Reagan Administration in the 1980s as General Musharraf has from the Bush Administration in the 2000s.
Yet Musharraf must already be looking beyond the Bush presidency. He probably recognizes that if a Democratic Administration takes over from Bush, it will be less tolerant of the status quo in Pakistan. So General Musharraf will try to continue to consolidate his hold on power over the next fourteen months. And, he is doing so by adopting a classic line from the Bush playbook – claiming that he is "temporarily" trading liberty for security in Pakistan's ongoing assistance with Bush’s "war on terror" – which seems to be receiving sympathetic consideration from the Bush Administration.
In a November 2003 address at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush had proclaimed, "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo."
President Bush must surely realize that as long as our foreign policy continues to accommodate friendly dictators in allied Muslim nations such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we are not going to make any real progress in the larger war on terrorism. If the president can't "walk his own talk" and continues to accept the status quo in Pakistan, how can he expect General Musharraf to behave any differently? If Musharraf is willing to pack his nation's Supreme Court with stooges and amend its constitution so that he can never be held accountable for his actions, he might as well appoint himself president for life and be done with it.
It is long past time for an American president to realize that the only way to avoid experiencing déjà vu all over again with our foreign policy is to let consistency in our principles trump the convenience of our causes, when these two ideals are in conflict. Also, in order to change hearts and minds in the Muslim world, we need to practice a less duplicitous foreign policy with our key Islamic allies. Only by refocusing our foreign policy on core American values, can we expect to make progress in Pakistan and the Muslim world. In fact, only by returning to a foreign policy that is solidly based on our cherished principles, can we regain the respect of the larger fraternity of nations? With the Annapolis summit in mind, now might be a good time for President Bush to send such an unequivocal message to the Arab world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)