Tweet
Axis of evil
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Dr Farrukh Saleem
At 9:15 p.m. on 29 January 2002, President Bush delivered the State of the Union Address. The president named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." On 20 March 2003, American-led forces --'axis of the willing'-- occupied Iraq, overthrew the Baath Party government and later executed Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. On 3 October 2007, North Korea agreed to "declare and disable its nuclear facilities in exchange for aid and economic concessions from the members of a six-party forum…." that includes South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the U.S. On Iran, America's most recent National Intelligence Estimate has "concluded that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program four years ago."
In a nutshell, things are more settled in Iraq than they were, say, a year ago. Iran is not as urgent as it was a year ago, and North Korea has decided to cash in its nuclear hyperbole.
In January 2005, Condoleezza Rice coined a new term, 'outposts of tyranny'. In a written statement to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Rice named Belarus, Myanmar, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe as the "most dangerous" and the most "anti-American" countries.
Fast forward to 2007. Newsweek magazine declared: "The most dangerous nation in the world isn't Iraq. It's Pakistan." Fast forward to 2008. Hillary Clinton asserted that she would "propose a joint US-British team to oversee the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if she is elected President." The Economist then classified Pakistan as the "world's most dangerous place."
To be certain, this is the presidential primaries season and its going to be a foreign policy election. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Myanmar, Cuba and Zimbabwe are all off the hook and Pakistan is on every political radar in America. Every presidential hopeful --Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani and Alan Keyes -- is on the campaign trail out to outdo the other trying to demonstrate to American voters that he or she is the only one who knows Pakistan the best.
Here's my take on Washington: One, presidential hopefuls are saying what they are saying not to get Pakistan but to get American votes. Two, America is a country with multiple centres of powers, like the White House, the congress, the media, the intelligentsia and the think tanks. Three, the White House prefers status quo. Four, the congress is looking at a fundamental revision of American policy on Pakistan. Five, the foundation of American foreign policy is realism; devoid of ethics and morality it's all about American national interest. In effect, Pakistan-US relationship has been transactional in nature; they come here for a particular transaction, transact and then take off. Look at history: Pakistan joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) because President Eisenhower wanted to block communist expansion in Southeast Asia. Pakistan singed up for the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) because America wanted to "contain the Soviet Union by having a line of states along the USSR's south-western frontier." Tricky Dick Nixon dinned with General Muhammad Yahya Khan because Pakistan agreed to 'ping pong diplomacy' (the exchange of ping pong players of China and the US marking the thaw in diplomatic relations). Reagan 'The Gipper' befriended General Zia-ul-Haq because Pakistan agreed to become part of the Reagan Doctrine (to bring the Soviet Union to her knees). Currently, there are two pending transactions: 'loose nukes and Al-Qaeda'.
Why has Pakistan-U.S. relationship been transactional? As a matter of cold-blooded economic calculus, we need America more than America needs us. Why do we need America more than America needs us? Here's why: One, America buys nearly 30 percent of all our exports. For America, imports from Pakistan represent a mere 0.269 percent of America's total imports. Two, some 15 million Pakistani workers get their monthly wages because American consumers are buying our textiles. No American worker, on the other hand, is going to loose his or her job if Pakistani consumers decide to boycott American products. Three, America is the only major country with which we have a trade surplus. Four, American investors account for nearly 30 percent of our Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Five, America is now the single largest source of workers remittances (28 percent of our global workers remittances come from the U.S).
Pakistan was neither in the 'axis of evil' nor an 'outpost of tyranny' but we are now under the American microscope. Iraq is not the most important country in the 'war on terror' neither is Afghanistan. It is Pakistan.
Why has Pakistan-US relationship been transactional? America would like it that way. It's in our national interest to change the nature of that relationship -- from transactional to interest driven. Yes, there are alternatives to the US. One, beg Saudi Arabia to buy 30 percent of all our exports (Saudi Arabia currently buys 1.8 percent of our exports). Two, beg China to invest $1 billion every five months into Pakistan (for July-November 2007 China invested $7.3 million and the U.S. $1 billion).
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: [email protected]
Capital suggestion
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Dr Farrukh Saleem
At 9:15 p.m. on 29 January 2002, President Bush delivered the State of the Union Address. The president named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." On 20 March 2003, American-led forces --'axis of the willing'-- occupied Iraq, overthrew the Baath Party government and later executed Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. On 3 October 2007, North Korea agreed to "declare and disable its nuclear facilities in exchange for aid and economic concessions from the members of a six-party forum…." that includes South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the U.S. On Iran, America's most recent National Intelligence Estimate has "concluded that Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program four years ago."
In a nutshell, things are more settled in Iraq than they were, say, a year ago. Iran is not as urgent as it was a year ago, and North Korea has decided to cash in its nuclear hyperbole.
In January 2005, Condoleezza Rice coined a new term, 'outposts of tyranny'. In a written statement to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Rice named Belarus, Myanmar, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe as the "most dangerous" and the most "anti-American" countries.
Fast forward to 2007. Newsweek magazine declared: "The most dangerous nation in the world isn't Iraq. It's Pakistan." Fast forward to 2008. Hillary Clinton asserted that she would "propose a joint US-British team to oversee the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal if she is elected President." The Economist then classified Pakistan as the "world's most dangerous place."
To be certain, this is the presidential primaries season and its going to be a foreign policy election. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Myanmar, Cuba and Zimbabwe are all off the hook and Pakistan is on every political radar in America. Every presidential hopeful --Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani and Alan Keyes -- is on the campaign trail out to outdo the other trying to demonstrate to American voters that he or she is the only one who knows Pakistan the best.
Here's my take on Washington: One, presidential hopefuls are saying what they are saying not to get Pakistan but to get American votes. Two, America is a country with multiple centres of powers, like the White House, the congress, the media, the intelligentsia and the think tanks. Three, the White House prefers status quo. Four, the congress is looking at a fundamental revision of American policy on Pakistan. Five, the foundation of American foreign policy is realism; devoid of ethics and morality it's all about American national interest. In effect, Pakistan-US relationship has been transactional in nature; they come here for a particular transaction, transact and then take off. Look at history: Pakistan joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) because President Eisenhower wanted to block communist expansion in Southeast Asia. Pakistan singed up for the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) because America wanted to "contain the Soviet Union by having a line of states along the USSR's south-western frontier." Tricky Dick Nixon dinned with General Muhammad Yahya Khan because Pakistan agreed to 'ping pong diplomacy' (the exchange of ping pong players of China and the US marking the thaw in diplomatic relations). Reagan 'The Gipper' befriended General Zia-ul-Haq because Pakistan agreed to become part of the Reagan Doctrine (to bring the Soviet Union to her knees). Currently, there are two pending transactions: 'loose nukes and Al-Qaeda'.
Why has Pakistan-U.S. relationship been transactional? As a matter of cold-blooded economic calculus, we need America more than America needs us. Why do we need America more than America needs us? Here's why: One, America buys nearly 30 percent of all our exports. For America, imports from Pakistan represent a mere 0.269 percent of America's total imports. Two, some 15 million Pakistani workers get their monthly wages because American consumers are buying our textiles. No American worker, on the other hand, is going to loose his or her job if Pakistani consumers decide to boycott American products. Three, America is the only major country with which we have a trade surplus. Four, American investors account for nearly 30 percent of our Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Five, America is now the single largest source of workers remittances (28 percent of our global workers remittances come from the U.S).
Pakistan was neither in the 'axis of evil' nor an 'outpost of tyranny' but we are now under the American microscope. Iraq is not the most important country in the 'war on terror' neither is Afghanistan. It is Pakistan.
Why has Pakistan-US relationship been transactional? America would like it that way. It's in our national interest to change the nature of that relationship -- from transactional to interest driven. Yes, there are alternatives to the US. One, beg Saudi Arabia to buy 30 percent of all our exports (Saudi Arabia currently buys 1.8 percent of our exports). Two, beg China to invest $1 billion every five months into Pakistan (for July-November 2007 China invested $7.3 million and the U.S. $1 billion).
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: [email protected]
Capital suggestion
It indicates that the US relationship with Pakistan is not a "betrayal" as is generally perceived, but a transactional equation. And, in each of the transaction, it has been mutually beneficial.
Even currently, the US Pakistan equation has assisted in the return of Pakistan into the comity of nation from nearly being declared a failed state, and has boosted Pakistan’s economy to the fine state that it is of now, through the assistance of the World Bank and IMF. It has also seen the beefing up of Pakistan’s military and a sizeable amount has been used to shore up against the Indian military.
This also indicates that the US is not against Pakistan in either the “axis of evil” or the “outpost of tyranny” mode and it also puts paid to the idea (baloney for some) that the War on Terror is actually a guise for ulterior motives of religious domination, to put it euphemistically.
Pakistan cannot do with the US or even the West since the benefit that it accrues from trade with the US has been indicated rather tongue in cheek wherein he states that the transactional relationship can surely be change by either banking on the munificence of Saudi Arabia or expect a largess from China every five months (his choice of word “beg” is a trifle rude).
The alternative to US transactional relationship, the writer has left to only two options. One wonders if there are more.
