Stop the conspiracy bogies!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Sadiq Saleem
In 1954, Sher-e-Bengal Maulvi Fazlul Haq, who was the mover of the Pakistan Resolution in 1940 and was a great freedom fighter, became the chief minister of erstwhile East Pakistan. The first post-independence election in the country had resulted in victory for
the opposition United Front led by the Awami League. Soon after the great Bengali leader of the Pakistan Movement assumed office, Pakistan's permanent establishment launched a campaign painting him as "soft on India." The mover of the Pakistan Resolution was described as a "traitor" and eventually removed from power and even sent to prison.
The pattern has been repeated several times in Pakistan's chequered history. If some self-proclaimed super-patriots are to be believed, Pakistan's national interest is once again under threat because the elected government led by the PPP has different ideas about foreign policy than these super-patriots. The designation of Sher-e-Bengal as a traitor marked the beginning of the process of alienating Bengali leaders that culminated in the unfortunate breaking away of East Pakistan that chose to be called as Bangladesh.
The most outspoken, and possibly hysterical, of the super-patriots in the media has only recently completed an 8-year stint as head of a foreign office funded think tank. Having faithfully served the authoritarian establishment regime from 1999 to the beginning of this year, the grand lady of the "whoever disagrees with me on foreign policy is a foreign agent" school of thought has been talking of a mythical capitulation by the elected government to the United States and possibly India.
A simple Google search of her articles in this newspaper reveals that only after the February 18 elections has she found the word capitulation in the thesaurus to describe any and all actions of the elected leaders vis-"¡-vis the United States. On March 8, her article
was titled, "US Yearns for Pak Capitulation." On May 28, she spoke of "How we wasted our nuclear achievement" and on June 8 she wrote again about "A Deliberate Capitulation to the US."
So let me get this right. It was not capitulation to the United States when Pakistani military bases were offered to US troops heading to Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 in 2001. It was not capitulation when the Head of the Pakistani State acknowledged in his book that Pakistan's intelligence services had "earned" millions of US dollars in reward money from the CIA in return for handing over persons (including Pakistani citizens) wanted by the United States. It was not capitulation when the un-elected government consistently allowed US intrusion into Pakistani airspace. It was not capitulation when Dr A Q Khan was humiliated publicly by being asked to make confessions his wife now says were only a cover for institutional decisions. But we must somehow believe the frantic assertion that under an elected government, Asif Zardari is orchestrating capitulation to the United States through a trio comprising Mahmud Durrani, Husain Haqqani and Rehman Malik.
The weakness of an argument is often exposed by the vehemence with which its advocate invokes adjectives to describe his or her opponents. The super patriots do not argue, they label the other side. For example in one article the grand super patriot lady accused the Pakistani ambassador to the United States of trying to fundamentally reorient Pakistani foreign policy as if it were a crime. I am not suggesting he is but my view is that boldly proposing a new direction in foreign relations is not generically wrong. It would be one thing to make the case for why policy should not be reoriented but to suggest that having a different view on how to approach the world's sole superpower or Pakistan's neighbours is a crime of itself reflects an approach similar to the one that was used against Maulvi Fazlul Haq.
The issue on which she accused the ambassador of committing heresy related to the India-US nuclear deal. The ambassador's opinion (as reported by his critic) seemed to be that since no other country, including China, was publicly opposing the deal at IAEA, Pakistan too should not oppose it. Instead Pakistan could say that the deal opens the way for non-NPT states (like India and Pakistan) to gain access to nuclear technology "”something that bolsters our own claim to a similar deal in future. Super patriots with invisible ties may not agree and they are free to assert that their own loud denouncements of India are the best course for Pakistan but I find nothing unpatriotic about a contrary diplomatic stance.
In most countries foreign policy is debated by offering arguments about what is the national interest. In Pakistan, the super patriots assume that there is some pre-determined national interest (undoubtedly determined by them and their invisible mentors) and the only debate allowed is about who is or is not following that script. In the US, many people think that the Iraq war should be ended immediately while others support the war. Both sides are offering their visions of what is in the national interest of the United States. Neither calls the other unpatriotic. India recently debated the India-US deal in a similar fashion with each side making the case for why the deal was or was not in India's interest.
Let Dr Shireen Mazari, Irshad Haqqani and Ahmed Quraishi also make their arguments in favour of their vision of national interest without labelling those with whom they disagree as traitors and foreign agents. Why can't someone argue legitimately that it is in Pakistan's interest to be a friend of the United States and that fulfilling US expectations that some super patriots find objectionable may not be that bad for Pakistan after all? The objectors can argue back with their reasoning of why it is not beneficial for the country. Neither needs to engage in name-calling.
Asif Zardari heads Pakistan's largest political party, one that won an election only six months ago. General Durrani served his country as a soldier and Rehman Malik as a law enforcement officer. Watching Ambassador Haqqani on US television fills the heart of every Pakistani in North America with pride, such is his erudition and ability to field questions from Americans. His softly articulated assertion on The Charlie Rose show, one of the toughest interview programmes on US TV, that "If India and Afghanistan level some allegations and the United States supports them, we need evidence, we need hard evidence," carried far more weight and credibility than the daily harangues by America bashers in Pakistan.
Haqqani's view that "American concerns are allayed and Pakistan's concerns about its sovereignty and about civilian authority and control and its concerns relating to Afghanistan and India are all addressed together," serves as a good blueprint for the way forward
for the troubled alliance.
Of course there is plenty of room to disagree with Asif Zardari, General Durrani, Rehman Malik and Husain Haqqani but there is no reason to spin conspiracy theories and accuse them of lacking patriotism. It is time we brought to an end the pattern of discussing
foreign policy in frenzied terms. If military rulers from Ayub to Musharraf were patriots while seeking a good relationship with the United States so are the civilians pursuing the same objective. And if Nawaz Sharif did not sell out Pakistan by seeking peace with India there is no reason to describe the PPP leaders as unfaithful to the country for defining the same as their foreign policy objective. There is no conspiracy, dear super patriots; only a difference of opinion on what is best for Pakistan. And may I add, even if one of you was ruling or representing Pakistan yourself you would not be able to get anything other than humanitarian amenities for Aafia Siddiqui at the present moment.
(The writer is a businessman and part-time analyst based in Toronto, Canada) sadiqsaleemca@gmail.com
|