Af-Pak and its Discontents

The contours of the Obama administrations’-labelled Af-Pak- foreign policy posture toward South Asia are becoming increasingly clear: put exogenous pressure on Pakistan to change both the nature and conception of this state nation and de link India from the equation. The Taliban-good or bad- appear in this respect, appear to be a mere bogey or an inflated threat. That is to say, the alliance between the United States and the Pakistan has now whittled into a game of attrition where the Taliban appears to be, first lulled into an expanding mode and then the full force of the state applied to them-all for the accolades from the superpower and aid monies.(This, of course, is speculation).Now the question is: what is the efficacy or import of the nature of this exercise? The obvious answer that strikes the mind is the short termism and the politics of expediency inherent in this approach .The corollary or implication is that the embattled state nation-Pakistan is increasingly become an arena for or of Kafkaesque drama’s where the difference between perpetrators of violence and victims is becoming blurred. This, by no means, is a model of a healthy or salubrious state of affairs. From a macro perspective, the expectations of the Muslim world(s), of which Pakistan is an important (albeit weak(ened) component are once again belied and the concomitant anti Americanism is once again on the rise. (This is more important and salient in Pakistan). The major expectation was that a course correction by the US toward the Muslim world(s) would be vigorous public diplomacy and an approach that has been termed as soft power. That is, the power to attract by explaining or highlighting those aspects of the United States that could be appealing. However what appears to be the dominant paradigm of US’ policy is the inverse: employment of hard power to ‘, to use a crude metaphor, ‘beat the shit out of its alleged adversaries’. Now this approach, history and the sordid saga of Sep 11 has demonstrated is pregnant with danger and portentous of rather insalubrious relations between the west and the Islamic worlds.(The formulation or the thesis of the Clash of Civilizations looks increasingly ominous…).This state of affairs necessarily means anti Americanism of the variety that the Obama administration was meant to obviate and raises more questions than answers. The dominant question that strikes the mind is: what is the US’ real agenda? Is it hegemony in the region?Is islam the foil against which the US is determining or defining itself? Or is the United States, de noveau, a victim of ignorance-the kind that determined its posture toward its Muslim clients? Why is the United States aiming to change the nature of the Pakistani state through pressure of the carrots and sticks approach? Or more broadly, returning to the theme of a civilization conflict is the US at the forerunner of the clash of civilizations thesis? The answers to these salient questions have to be rather speculative given the mystique and the obfuscations that define the superpowers’ relationship with Pakistan and Pakistan’s response to it. I would postulate that the US is , first, a victim of ignorance and, second its internal political dynamic appears to warrant hard-line or tough posturing. This approach, to repeat myself ignores the lessons of history and is expedient at best and specious at worst. And its success is ultimately contingent on state society relations in Pakistan where public opinion may not be the determinant of the polity. As such, it(approach) can be upheld only through the coercive apparatus of the state and in disregard of the wishes of the people. So the question is or morphs into:what can be done or what approach is suitable for the region as a whole. I would posit that the US review its working assumptions toward Pakistan and offer it the prospects of genuine partnership or alliance and that this be comprehensive and exhaustive. Or more specifically, clear cut benefits of a more salubrious polity be demonstrated to Pakistan. And second, the US review its posture in the wider or broader Middle East and let the region undertake its own charted path to the kind of modernity that is in sync with the regions’ ethos. Third, should be a clear cut public diplomacy that puts the fears generated by the ‘clash of civilizations thesis to rest. These ‘recipes’ acquire salience and poignancy given the current state of affairs in the muslim world(s).And thus the alternatives are too doleful to countenance for both the Islamic world(s) and the west. A retreat into a kind of self hood that is reactive instead of being proactive would guarantee that the Muslim worlds remain mired in problems, to an extent , of our own making and anti westernism becomes the idiom in which relations with the west are articulated. This state of affairs would them lend automatic credence to the civilizational conflict or clash and it would become a self fulfilling prophecy- a condition no one needs or wants. The corollary would be what may be called ‘collateral damage’ to the contemporary wave of globalization and give short shrift to a more benign world order. To return to the core thrust of this piece, it is high time that course correction be undertaken by all parties involved and some degree of equilibrium be restores to the South Asian region , in particular and the world at large.