ARTICLE FOR DAILY STAR FOR SUNDAY 7^TH MARCH 2010

              

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador)

WHAT If the anti-Indians Taliban were to confine their objective to terrorism in India and they were to renounce themselves against any global ambitions for regime change in wayward Muslim countries and the ‘degenerate” West for establishing Caliphate throughout the world, would the Western world withdraw the NATO forces from Afghanistan and condemn that country and part of Pakistan to be ruled  by extremist Islamic regime given their belief in  one man, one vote, one time and sharia as “the” source of law and not “a” source of law, and that ‘ every Muslim’s responsibility is to lead his life in an Islamic state governed by the Quran and Sunnah and in a society that is established by Sharia?  Admittedly it is difficult to believe in any such declaration by the Islamic extremists but there is a general consensus that state sponsored terrorism is more India-specific , and if Pakistan can be encouraged  to rein in and destroy  them in totality. Should Pakistan refuse then the US and Western world could withdraw financial and military support given to Pakistan and also impose strict sanctions,  and/or give India full support in destroying the terrorists. The Western fear that such support to India could result in  (a)  stoking a  Indo-Pak conflict into a full fledged conflagration resulting in  destabilization of South Asian region,  (b)  further increase anti-US sentiment in Pakistan ( US is already extremely unpopular in Pakistan and a poll suggested that 80% of Pakistanis were  against US drone attacks despite the fact that some of these attacks killed the leaders of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) and helped Pakistan army’s military operations in Waziristan and in terrorist infested areas of NWFP, and (c)  enthuse some  indigenous elements in Pakistan to help al-Qaeda   acquire nuclear material and cause greater threat to Western interests and people. But would it necessarily be so? Albeit the Romans ruled the world by sword which is neither practicable nor desirable in the present day world.

 One wonders whether Walter Russell Meade’s thesis( Foreign Policy magazine-Carter Syndrome- Jan/Feb 2010) that US Presidents have over the years been influenced by the beliefs of first US Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton that the US should have a strong national government and a strong military to pursue a realist global policy;  Woodrow Wilson while agreeing with the Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy emphasized on the promotion of democracy and human rights as core of the US policy; Thomas Jefferson dissented from the globalist approach and wanted the US to minimize its commitments and dismantle the national security state; and lastly Jacksonians are populists “suspicious of Hamiltonians’ business links, Wilsonians’ do-gooding and Jeffersonians’ weakness”. Branding Barak Obama of Carter Syndrome Walter Meade suggests that Obama comes from the old fashioned Jeffersonian wing of the Democratic Party and believes in reducing America’s costs and risks abroad by limiting US commitments and that the US can better set an example of  spreading democracy abroad by practicing it at home and moderation abroad. Given Bush administration’s abject failure of its project to spread democracy abroad and devaluing American attractiveness to the world by changing the logic of the ouster of Saddam Hussein from owning weapons of mass destruction, his alleged  intent to use the weapons on the West and his links with al-Qaeda, all being  proved  wrong, to regime change from dictatorship to pluralism( end result being sectarian conflict and a tottering democracy) Barak Obama appears to be far more practical in the use of US military power demonstrated by his approval of General Stanley McChrystal’s   AfPak policy of winning the hearts and minds of the people in place of shock and awe.  Walter Meade is optimistic that Obama could extract US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, a contemporary equivalent of “Vietnamization” policy of Richard Nixon and open up with Iran as Nixon did with radicalized Red Guard China as a follower of Jeffersonian policy of managing US concerns with lowest possible level of risk. He, however, may fail if Afghanistan remains intractable or unforeseen events turn his policy into incoherent reversal of fortune like Jimmy Carter’s “failure” in Iran imbroglio..

 The point of discussion here is  whether US should  withdraw  from AfPak region.    A fundamental assumption in this analysis is that both Afghanistan and Pakistan being mainly tribal societies and deeply devoted to religion cannot escape Talibanization at the end of the day and also because Afghanistan will remain divided along ethnic lines and would never have liberal democracy that in any case has been totally alien to the Afghan people. The West has also to realize that the very basis of the creation of Pakistan was on religious ground and for the better part of its independence in 1947 the country has been ruled by the military and intermittently by corrupt democratically elected government who were essentially composed of landowners, military- industrial complex  or as described by South Asian expert Stephen Cohen by  “moderate Oligarchy”—an informal political system that ties together senior members of the military, the civil service, the key players of the judiciary and other elites-- having little love for democracy as it is understood generally.  ..

For the residents of this region Indo-Pak rivalry remains a fact of life despite the fact that India of 1947 and of today are vastly different in population, economic and military strength, and has been given a seat in the G-20 that has replaced the G-8, a board for managing the politico-economic developments of the world. . But Pakistan’s refusal to accept India’s new found elevated position coupled with being a nuclear nation makes life difficult for us all and arrests the politico-economic development of the region.