 |
| |
WEEKLY
SECTIONS |
 |
|
 |
| State of confusion |
|
|
|
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
Like some bizarre recipe concocted by a crazed chef, the issue of hatred for the US and its self-centred policies has become almost inextricably mixed up with that of extremism.
The latest example of this comes in the message of congratulations sent by Venezuela's radical, socialist President Hugo Chavez to his Iranian counterpart, the hard-line, reactionary Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on being 're-elected'. Given that the election in Iran was quite evidently massively rigged with the assistance of Iran's pro-Ahmadinejad Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that it has plummeted Iran into crisis triggering street protests by the supporters of reformist candidates and that the events that have unfolded have badly wronged the people of Iran, the message is distinctly inapt. Chavez has in his words of welcome joined Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas in Palestine. While these groups can find something at least in common with Ahmadinejad, the backing from Chavez for a man who has unleashed 'morality' police on women, banned many forms of entertainment for youth, presided over economic policies that have led to an unofficial unemployment rate of 30 per cent and an inflation rate of 25 per cent and who has now been responsible for repressing popular protest, can stem only from the one factor that unites the two men: an abiding, indeed blinding, hatred for Washington and its policies.
The statements made by both Chavez and Ahmadinejad have caused Washington to cringe. This response is in many ways amusing to watch, given that there are, sadly, few nations in the world willing to take on the sole global super-power. But simply a willingness to threaten the US cannot be a basis for backing any individual or any group. Indeed, Ahmadinejad, one of the men involved in the 1979 hostage drama when around 70 Americans were held at the US embassy in Teheran for 444 days, is guilty of comments that amount to the racist and the downright absurd. He has for instance denied the Holocaust ever took place at all. His policies have isolated Iran, and have been a factor in the vote by Iran's people to usher in a more liberal, less conservative leader. Iran's women, who form an increasingly active part of the electorate in their country and who have been angered by Ahmadinejad's failure to keep promises to reform laws affecting their rights and liberties, played a key role in this.
The situation finds echo within Pakistan. Support for the Taliban – which still lingers in some quarters – stems in part from the fact that they are unapologetic in their attacks on the US. In a country where parties of the Left no longer exist, and opposition for Washington simply does not seem to be an option, it is tempting perhaps to fall in lines with such slogans. But there is a need to adopt a more rational outlook, to distinguish between the extremist hatred of the US that led to even the tragedy of 9/11 being hailed as a 'victory' and a more just opposition to the flawed policies pursued by Washington. It should be possible to oppose both the Taliban and the US and to condemn men like Ahmadinejad as no less dangerous than former President Bush. For this to happen the focus must lie on the strategies of Washington, on its terrible injustices in the Middle East and how these have acted to fuel the terrorism that now endangers all of us. It is yet to be seen how far the Barack Obama team can, and is willing too, amend these wrongs of the past.
But what must be kept in mind is that not everyone who opposes the US is necessarily any less 'evil' than Washington. This certainly holds true for the Taliban. One of Pakistan's many tragedies is that, at the present moment in time, it seems inconceivable that we would be able to battle them without the US. But, for the future, we need to think harder about the situation. The long presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan has done nothing to eradicate the Taliban in that country. Indeed they have grown in force over the nine years since the US established itself there. Afghanistan itself remains in ruins, its economy shattered, its people destroyed and the security situation no better than it was nine years ago. In the context of Pakistan, the fact that some UN employees believe the risks they face here are even greater than in Kabul is hardly encouraging. Islamabad must then ask what we stand to gain in the longer term by staying engaged with Washington. In the same vein, Washington too should ponder whether the best bet for it may be to pull out from the region.
Such a move may well play the crucial role in bringing to it the stability that has thus far proved elusive. The US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan has undoubtedly played a part in spurring on militancy. Disengagement could help calm some of the sentiments that fuel extremism and have led to allies for the Taliban springing up in even the most unlikely places. But this alone will not be enough. A distancing from the US must be combined with strategies that can bring betterment in the lives of people. For this it may be prudent to study some of the examples set in Latin America – not only in the Venezuela of Chavez, but also in Bolivia, in Brazil, in Chile, in Cuba and elsewhere. But beyond this, there would be a need to accept a change in regional alignments, to work towards building closer ties with India and in the longer run seek a place in the powerful Indo-China economic bloc that some analysts believe could dominate the world over the next decade.
Encouragingly, just as the people of Iran seem to see that opposition to the US is not enough, the same feeling seems to be sweeping across Pakistan. While some elements – notably the Jamaat-e-Islami – remain reluctant to abandon the Taliban, others have accepted that blaming only the US for the turmoil in our midst is pointless. The suicide bombings, the targetted killings and the other acts of terrorism that take place on an almost daily basis are indeed linked to past polices pursued by Washington. But this does not mean the Taliban should in any way be defended; they represent a terrible force that threatens to destroy our society and all that is good within it. The people they kill are for the most part Pakistani. For this reason they must be opposed with all the force we can muster.
As is the case with the 're-election' of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, what is wrong cannot be turned into something good simply because of the way in which the US fits into the picture. The painting sketched out by Washington as its vision for the world is undoubtedly a distorted one. The task before us all is to draw our own, more tasteful pictures – not add to distortions already present on the canvas that is currently on display before the world.
Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Back
| Send
this story to Friend | Print
Version |
|
|
|
ISSN 1563-9479 
