Rethinking Pakistan

sunderkatwala Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:30:44 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The terrible news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination also marks a failure of US and western polcy towards Pakistan. The UK government should place the emphasis on backing the building of democratic institutions, not individuals whose commitment is questionable.



The terrible news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination also marks a failure of US and western polcy towards Pakistan. Over recent months, the top priority of the US administration had been brokering a Musharraf-Bhutto alliance, a strategy fraught with risk.The ostensible rationale was to bolster stability and western influence, yet those aims seemed to have become indistinguishable from the wish to 'bail out' President Musharraf. The mistake has been to place far too little emphasis on backing democratic principles and institution building, and instead too much on backing individuals, whose rhetorical commitment to those long-term goals has been, at best, contingent and more often lacking credibility entirely. A more detailed argument here http://worldafterbush.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-west-must-think-again-on-pakistan.html

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Rethinking Pakistan | 43 comments (43 topical)

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#1)

by swatantra on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:43:46 PM GMT

I think we have to examine why the West has been duped into siding with Pakistan all these years. It was never a viable State and it has played off one country against another; its used its claims on Kashmir to foment instability in the region; it has used the Taliban  in Afghanistan to make the West turn a blind eye to its own despotic regime. We have to ask ourselves if we should be further used in this way. Perhaps America invaded the wrong country; perhaps the West should have occupied Pakistan, dismantled its nuclear arsenal and imposed democracy there instead of worrying about Iraq. Pakistan is not a friend of the West. It is a bit player in the great game, just as is Afghanistan.


Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#2)

by laurencemarshall on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:46:47 PM GMT

The reason why the west has had to support Pakistan, certainly after September 11th (remember that sanctions had been imposed on Pakistan before this date), is obvious to anyone with any grasp of international relations. Pakistan was willing to assist the west in combating Al Qida, and conveniently has a border with Afghanistan, over which is basically a lawless badland. Considering the vast number of Al Qida terrorists that are hiding there, the idea that we shouldn't treat Pakistan favourably would be a path to more carnage. Pakistan needs an incentive to help catch these people. I'm not saying that Pakistan is particularly competent in doing this, and that its security services haven't been complicit in assisting the Taliban in the past, but sadly it is the only viable option open to us to achieve our policy goals.

Also, your idea that the west should have invaded Pakistan is infantile and stupid. Firstly, In practical terms, how do you propose to subjugate a population as large as Pakistan's?  We are barely managing next door in Afghanistan which is basically a wasteland. Secondly, do you really think that invading a nuclear power would be a good idea? Only one needs to go off to damn millions, which is something that isn't in anybodies interest.

Finally, relating to the nuclear issue, if we had treated Pakistan like a pariah state, the danger of even more nuclear proliferation was a certainty. Why shouldn't a 'sanctioned up' state sell technology to its benefit, and more importantly to the cost of those who imposed sanctions upon it?

Go back and think about it. 

 

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#3)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:53:01 AM GMT

You've said it yourself. If the root of terrorism was apparently coming from Afghanistan, and the border with Pakistan was so porous allowing terrorists to cross at will and madrasas were encouraged to indoctrinate, and that Pakistan was absolutely hopeless at controlling its borders, and it is doubtful whether Pakistan was really all that willing to stamp out the Taliban, and that it is a rogue nuclear power, with a military finger on the button it would of made more sense to take the army regime out, and install democracy in Pakistan. That way the borders would be better controlled. The bluff of nuclear retaliation has to be tested. There have been several 'border wars' with India and Pakistan was never resorted to any nuclear reaction. And it wouldn't if it had been invaded by the Allies. Lets face it Pakistan is as rogue a state as any you will find; it is a continual source of instability in te world.; worse in my opinion than Iraq or Iran. It needs sorting out.
So its back to your textbooks lawrencemarshall, only make sure they are up to date and not written by Kissinger.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#4)

by laurencemarshall on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 02:33:01 PM GMT

Ok, time for your schooling. 

(brackets indicate extra reading) 

The border disputes between India and Pakistan were unlikely to end in a nuclear conflict, due to the doctrine of MAD. Also, the border disputes were not a fight over the survival of Pakistan or India, both states still would have existed had Kashmir fallen to either. However, the threat of invasion and subjugation would surely be the ultimate incentive to let loose a nuclear weapon. Subjugation is obviously the ultimate loss of security, nuclear weapons are the ultimate defence of security, the idea that Pakistan would be unlikely to use them is idiotic.

"The bluff of nuclear retaliation has to be tested", you are, quite frankly, a madman who evidently has no regard for human life.

(An interesting sidenote is that the nuclear weapons of both states, due to MAD, kept the Kashmir conflict from escalating. In order to fight India, Pakistan was employed (using
American and Russian tactics of the cold war to overcome the problem of MAD) proxy forces. These forces, of course, came from the source most easily available: Islamic extremists.)

Anyway, as for your attempt to take my words out of context in regards to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, I would only pose to you how difficult it is to police a huge wasteland. Us and America have problems in Afghanistan, and our military is far better trained than the Pakistani army. Even if NATO invaded Pakistan, there is not much to indicate that we would do any better than the Pakistani army is doing now.

You seem to repeat the mantra that Pakistan is a rogue state, and give examples of it supporting the Taliban as to the dubious reasons why it is (more accurately, it supported stability in Afghanistan). Do you have something against Pakistan? And let me ask, is your ancestry Indian in origin?

As for textbooks, I much prefer Wendt over Kissenger, though you probably don't know who that is. 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#5)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:00:37 PM GMT

I have no idea who Wendt is but if he's a neo con then I'm not interested; he's got the wrong end of the stick. The title of this blog is 'Re thinking Pakistan'. So we have to think a bit more imaginatively than the dunderheads at the Pentagon. Lets think a bit more laterally.
Supporting a puppet regime which plays one side against the other, ad half-heartedly supports the so-called war on terror will not work. Neither will supporting a blatantly Islamic States, which spreads a theory of Islam across the world. I'm for secular states.
As to my ancestry, yes I was born at the time when India was one nation, before the misguided poilcies of post war Britain decided to split it and led to a massacre. So I have a different take on things as say someone perhaps born after the great divide.
As to testing out the nuclear threat it was done by America twice first in Hiroshima second in Cuba Missile crisis. A State will use that tool as an extension of its foreign policy. It can work against petty countries like Pakistan and N Korea. Perhaps it wouldn't work again against the Russians.
I was listening to the London Report on BBC 24 Hrs, after I wrote that comment. The commentators are coming around to the same conclusion. The emphasis has to be on sorting Pakistan out, not Iran, so I feel vindicated. Pakistan is a rogue state, as is Israel, both seeds of perpetual conflict. Sort them out and we get some semblance of peace and order in the world.
So its back to the blackboard for you lawrence, and bin Wendt; hes out of date.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#6)

by jkitleft on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:53:00 PM GMT

I am very young still, and so my knowledge on international relations, while better than most peoples', is sketchy. I would say Swatantra though, that opposition research is incredibly important, so perhaps read Wendt, as I too, know little about him. My favourite writer at the moment is Christopher Hitchens, but I don't agree with Iraq, but his writing shapes my critical thinking.


What I do know, is that the conflicts in the past 10 years, whether I agreed with them or not, have always had a miguided understanding from the Western World about them. You of course, know this, originally being from the subcontinent, that it was Britain, carving it up like a cake, which led to ethnic warfare, and altered international relations to the point at which we are now. Any similar attempt in Iraq has failed also, and has exacerbated the tensions between the Kurds with Turkey now threatning to dismantle the one success story in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shias, a policy of the 47-48 period in India attempted with partitioning the police, security forces etc. in Iraq. And of course, western powers have a notorious history of failing in Afghanistan (as well as the Soviets, which was cocked up by the Americans as they funded a certaing mujahadeen warrior who could have been heir to the family most conncted with the Saudi Royal family)

We had a sketchy understanding of Eastern Europe, and Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Wilson carving the region like a cake, which only made the Nazis' attempts at taking over the Eastern front worse. We then let Stalin reap the winnings of the newly liberated countries. Then the Balkan conflict had a cautious Europe choosing to supress it into their subconcious, trying to forget the concentration camps and Srebrenica, and although now a 'success story', there could be trouble brewing in Kosovo in the near future.

While this may seem like a History lecture, I am merely pointing out that, even though I have supported some interventions, we have gone in with a liberal colonialist attitude, thinking we can solve every conflict with simple, Enlightenment thinking. While I do not deny superiority of Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Paine or John Locke and others in that hope of secular, liberal, and humanist thinking being a model for today's thinking in 'teaching' democracy to the world, it can defeat the purpose of an understanding of international relations. Western Civilisation is superior to the regimes that have plagued other countries, like the royal families, or other extremist rulers of countries. I'm not suggesting purist Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinking, or an ignorant bleating of 'but they're different people, and cultures' (because as much as those people, often cloaking in the veil of post-colonial guilt, try and deny it, that is racist, it's like a Prince Phillip or Boris Johnson reductionist view of how the 'natives' behave), but look to history, and the fact that this is a war of ideologies.

That is how we should be re-thinking our policy towards Pakistan, with the above advice and two words: tread carefully.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#7)

by swatantra on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 08:37:37 PM GMT

Thanks jk, I really do appreciate your advice. But one of my of New Year's Resolutions is to be forthright and honest; you won't always get that from a politician. Some things need to be said. And we have to start thinking outside the box. Our Foreign Policy, as you've argued, has been an absolute disaster, as though the future of the world is Euro-centric, or that Western civilisation rules, supreme. Was it MacMillan who said 'Britain has lost an Empire and still hasn't found a role'. In fact tomorrow probably belongs to India and China; the USA and Great Britain will feature a little lower down in the league tables; we'll have to accept that and make the best of it. History was also one of my favourite subjects at school.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#8)

by laurencemarshall on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:47:09 AM GMT

"I have no idea who Wendt is but if he's a neo con then I'm not interested; he's got the wrong end of the stick. The title of this blog is 'Re thinking Pakistan'. So we have to think a bit more imaginatively than the dunderheads at the Pentagon."

Wendt, or Professor Alexander Wendt to give his full title, is an advocate of thin contructivism and wrote the book "Social Theory of International Relations. I have a masters in international relations, and will shortly be doing a PhD. I mentioned him in reference to your mention of Kissinger, whose position is on the realist spectrum. Wendt's position gives more wriggle room. Incidentally, Kissinger's writings are very good. His book "Diplomacy" is, probably, the best book on IR history published for a very long time.

"Lets think a bit more laterally."

Advocating the testing of Pakistan's nuclear capacity is thinking laterally? Hell, it's not even rational. In the international environment there is a great deal of uncertainty, and any sane person would not want to take the risk with a nuclear power.

 
"Supporting a puppet regime which plays one side against the other, ad half-heartedly supports the so-called war on terror will not work. Neither will supporting a blatantly Islamic States, which spreads a theory of Islam across the world. I'm for secular states." 

How would you engage with Pakistan and get it to change its ways? Sanctions? It's been tried, and didn't work (and also encouraged Pakistan to spread its nuclear technology). How about invasion? I've already pointed out the impracticalities of this, and the insanity. Letting dissident leaders live in the west, in the hope that they can instigate a gradual civil society based change, and pressuring Pakistan to hold elections? Yeah, that's what we are already doing. Also we might consider working with the leaders already there, because we need things from them, and we are not sure if the status quo is going to change.

International politics is about what can be done, what should be done is nice to think about, but lets do it in small steps.

"As to my ancestry, yes I was born at the time when India was one nation, before the misguided poilcies of post war Britain decided to split it and led to a massacre. So I have a different take on things as say someone perhaps born after the great divide."

I asked because I have heard nothing but vitriol from you about how bad Pakistan is, with little evidence to back it up. Pretty much it has involved questioning Pakistan's viability as a state, that it's a rogue state and that it's more of a danger than North Korea and Iran. To be fair you sound almost like a raving Indian nationalist who is still bitter about Kashmir.     

In regards the Britain's involvement in partition, I really that there was more to it than you say. But that's another discussion.

"As to testing out the nuclear threat it was done by America twice first in Hiroshima second in Cuba Missile crisis. A State will use that tool as an extension of its foreign policy. It can work against petty countries like Pakistan and N Korea. Perhaps it wouldn't work again against the Russians. "

You clearly don't understand nuclear strategy and the consequences of MAD. Hiroshima is a bad example of nuclear strategy and the consequences of MAD, since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were about 100 weaker than H bombs later invented. Really, all the A bomb really was was an improvement in the scale of destruction. The Cuban missile crisis, however, clearly shows how MAD prevents overt military conflict between military powers. No one dared invade or attack because of the consequences and potential escalation. And obviously MAD applies to Pakistan, as the losses would be great if we invaded. So, we don't.

"A State will use that tool as an extension of its foreign policy. It can work against petty countries like Pakistan and N Korea. Perhaps it wouldn't work again against the Russians."

This doesn't make sense.

"I was listening to the London Report on BBC 24 Hrs, after I wrote that comment. The commentators are coming around to the same conclusion. The emphasis has to be on sorting Pakistan out, not Iran, so I feel vindicated. Pakistan is a rogue state, as is Israel, both seeds of perpetual conflict. Sort them out and we get some semblance of peace and order in the world."

Well bully for you! I doubt they really advocated the invasion of Pakistan, but nice attempt at an appeal to authority there.

You're clearly clueless about this, by all means come back for some more lessons.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#9)

by swatantra on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:43:23 PM GMT

Well, what can one say, Lawrence, quite a tour de force?

Wendt is flexible; Kissinger a realist. Does American Foregn Policy ever regard other countries other than pawns in its great game. Perhaps if it genuinely aided and assisted and enabled countries the West might win friends. Instead all it does is to protect and develop its own interest viz resources and power. 
The theory of Nuclear weapons as a deterrent? but nobody in their right minds would ever use them, its a game of bluff. You've said it yourself, its the MAD doctrine at work. If A UN force entered Israel or Pakistan to dismantle their nuclear arsenal does anyone seriously think that Israel or Pakistan would strike back with nuclear weapons? Pakistan and Israel would probably be extinguished forever. Perhaps your next PhD tesis could explore that possibility.

The West have been supporting these regimes with aid, deliberately collaborating with Pakistan and bolstering the regime, why because it helps American interests to do so, regardless of any human rights abuses going on. Any rendiitions there I wonder.
To answer your question you bring about change by withdrawing aid and support not pouring billions of dollars into the country. You condemn the country at the UN, and if necessary send a UN force in, to put things right.

Small steps are not good enough, a radical upheaval is necessary. It happened in S Africa and the USSR and E Europe, when the wall came down.

Offering asylum and sanctuary to some of these leaders ok, but I wonder if they are as bad as those the're protesting against. And whether they have the support of the country at large. In Iraq Alawi and Afghanistan Karsi.
The Islamic States are delibertaly spreading the militant form of Islam yet the USA supports the corrupt regime of Saudi Arabia. At least Saddam led a secular State in Iraq.

What I am concerned about is that Pakistan is nothing but a basketcase since its inception. Nothing personal against it. It could have proved itself, as India did but abandoned democracy altogether. The cause of several wars beween India, the cessation of Bangladesh. And yet we find the West supporting it for 50 years. Why. Study for your next thesis?

Cuba worked once, when Kruschev shied off; it wouldn't worked again if tried on Putin.

Well its nice to know that the State Dept and the FO have a host of PhD's and Professors advising them. Funny isn't that they can't come up with the right policies for a more secure world. They've got everything wrong so far. I wonder why? I don't put any faith in Wendt either. Perhaps they are being given the wrong advice from these experts.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#27)

by laurencemarshall on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:01:49 PM GMT

<!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->

Apologies for my absence, I have been engaged with new years festivities. Now, let's finish your lessons.

"The theory of Nuclear weapons as a deterrent? but nobody in their right minds would ever use them, its a game of bluff. You've said it yourself, its the MAD doctrine at work. If A UN force entered Israel or Pakistan to dismantle their nuclear arsenal does anyone seriously think that Israel or Pakistan would strike back with nuclear weapons? Pakistan and Israel would probably be extinguished forever. Perhaps your next PhD tesis could explore that possibility."

<Sigh>. Nuclear deterrence prevents large scale conflicts, both invasions and wars. It worked during the Berlin crisis, Cuban missile crisis and during the numerous potential conflicts between India and Pakistan. I have already explained this to you, if you don't understand now, then there is no hope for you. What I will add, although I doubt your limited intelligence will comprehend it, is the concept of uncertainty (the for of war if you like). The point is, Pakistans reaction to an invasion is uncertain. Surely, it would be logical to be cautious in the first place and not invade, and not risk the dreadful potential for human suffering that a nuclear weapon can wreak? Uncertainty is what provides the security in the twisted MAD situation. Also, my analysis is ceterus parabus. It assumes that there is stability in Pakistan's control of its nuclear weapons. In reality the situation could be that come an invasion, a hardliner could take control of the nukes and take control (incidentally, during the Cuban missile crisis a Russian submarine very nearly launched nukes in response to a perceived attack, which was only halted by a sensible junior officer). This, of course, makes the idea of invading Pakistan an even more stupid one. Your idea is actually mad, as opposed to MAD, I think the funny farm is calling for you.

Your idea of a UN force to invade Pakistan is also extremely unrealistic, even if it could ever be desirable. There has been only 3 UN sanctioned opporations in order to attack states; Korea which was allowed because the Russians were boycotting the Security Council, Iraq 1 which was the only ever example of one UN member completely taking over another and Afghanistan, where it was only sanctioned by the SC and contained troops under a NATO banner. Pakistan's crimes have not been as grave to warrent a UN force.

"At least Saddam led a secular State in Iraq"

Which attacked his neighbours and destablised the whole region. This really illustrates your anti muslim hatred.

"And yet we find the West supporting it for 50 years. Why. Study for your next thesis?"

It was called the cold war, y'know, this cold conflict where neither side was dominant and used proxy states? I'm not going to even go into that, you just won't understand. 

"Cuba worked once, when Kruschev shied off; it wouldn't worked again if tried on Putin."

Why not? Can you tell me why? No, because you don't understand nuclear security. (Incidentally, Khrushchev achieved a great deal for the USSR in terms of nuclear parity in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis. He wasn't the loser by any means. The agreement to end the stand off included a secret agreement for the US to remove its MRBMs in Turkey, which effectively limited the USA's first strike capacity. This made the world more secure, as the USSR would no longer have to consider a premptive strike if a another crisis emerged. Things are less secure in warfare when one side has an advantage over the other which can be negated by a first strike. Uncertainty, remember?)

"Well its nice to know that the State Dept and the FO have a host of PhD's and Professors advising them. Funny isn't that they can't come up with the right policies for a more secure world. They've got everything wrong so far. I wonder why? I don't put any faith in Wendt either. Perhaps they are being given the wrong advice from these experts."

And I suppose a ranting trigger happy nutter like yourself is better? You wouldn't know security if it bit you on the bum. And you've not even read Wendt, so how would you know?

Your thought is muddled and incoherent, you might like to get it checked out. 



[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#28)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:08:42 PM GMT

Well, if I were at the State Dept I'd be getting pretty concerned about the State of Pakistan. At the moment the finger on the button is Musharaff, who is a known quantity. But I really don't think he's going to last. He's becoming a libility to the corrupt Military who control the country with about 30% of the economy in the pockets of the Army. He'll be replaced. If I were at the Pentagon I'd be thinking, we've got to destroy their supposed nuclear capacity, now before things get worse, before some real nutter gets their finger on the button.
The steps that led up to the invasion of Kuwait that led to the First Gulf War are still in doubt. Saddam must have believed that the US would not intervene; he believed that he was being given the nod to intervene. The US changed their tune and mounted Desert Storm; and yet they didn't proceed to Baghdad. Why? was there an understanding between US and Saddam.

Saddam led a Secular State which allowed women freedoms, which are denied now in the Isamic world including Kuwait. The Islamic world is a repressive, feudal world; thats my only complaint against it. Otherwise I've got no problems with Islam as long as it is not militant Islam, then we've all got a right to be worried.

I agree that the only Statesman in the Cuba Crisis was Kruschev and not that hawk Kennedy and his brother Robert. But for Kruschev, the trigger-happy Kennedy could have precipitated an unnecessary nuclear conflict. 
As for reading Wendt I think you gave a pretty good summary of his thoughts. As I've said in another thread, thank goodess academics only advise otherwise we'ed be in even more serious trouble.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#29)

by jkitleft on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:42:02 PM GMT

As someone who thinks that all of the NSS's proposals should be carried out, it is naive to think that just because Saddam led a secular state, that it meant it was a tolerant state. Just because he gave women 'added rights', it does not mean they were particularly significant. Yes Sharia courts were abolished, but many cases weren't allowed in court at all. Woodchippers and places like Abu-Ghraib sorted that problem. Women ended up having the equal rights that others had. Not alot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#32)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:37:12 PM GMT

I think jk you'll find that many Iraqis were happier and safer under Saddam than the chaotic situation they have to put up with now. Women weren't forced to wear the veil and felt more secure on the streets. Women were in the professions and encouraged into higher education. Of course the regime was monstrous, and responsible for the many deaths of dissidents and secessionists like the Kurds and that was utterly deplorable.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#34)

by jkitleft on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM GMT

You seem to have made the mistake of thinking that secularism, because it happens in a state, is instinctively virtuous to that state. if a liberal democracy like ourselves were to adopt such a practice, yes it would be virtuous. But if it happens in a country, about to be taken by the leadership of a man, sadist enough to sit in a lecture room, puffing away on a cigar, crowded with party supporters, then see half of them dragged off, crying, and then lined up against a wall and shot, it does not validate Baathist Iraq in any way. Although many leftists like to indulge in the fallacy that all these deaths were caused by sanctions, sanctions do not cause a state to thump it's sadist fist into the ground. The validation of it being 'secular' is like the 'Mussolini made the trains run on time' arguement.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#30)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:21:50 PM GMT

"If I were at the Pentagon I'd be thinking, we've got to destroy their supposed nuclear capacity, now before things get worse, before some real nutter gets their finger on the button."

Firstly, there is nothing supposed about Pakistan's nuclear capacity. It exists. Wikipedia has a well sourced article on the subject (look it up). Secondly, again for reasons I've given, it's not a good idea to invade a state with nuclear weapons. Thirdly, Pakistan, though rife with extremism, is not dominated by it. So the nutter you seem to envisage is unlikely. Finally, who says they are getting worse? If anything, the assassination of Bhutto has galvanised the people into a democratic mindset.

"The steps that led up to the invasion of Kuwait that led to the First Gulf War are still in doubt. Saddam must have believed that the US would not intervene; he believed that he was being given the nod to intervene. The US changed their tune and mounted Desert Storm; and yet they didn't proceed to Baghdad. Why? was there an understanding between US and Saddam."

Saddam did indeed believe that the US would not intervene. If the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had happened during the cold war, the US probably wouldn't have bothered leading an international coalition to liberate it. However, Saddam wasn't given the nod to invade, simply because the State Department isn't that stupid. Look at it rationally, what is in the US' best interests in the oily places of the middle east? Stability! And what did an increasingly hostile Saddam represent to his neighbours (including Saudi Arabia)? An unstable force. The oil price rises which occurred after the invasion of Kuwait could never be in US' interests, and alleging that Saddam was given the nod does not stand up to scrutiny.

Why the US did not invade Baghdad should be fairly obvious to any intelligent observer. The size of the Iraqi army at the time of Desert Storm was immense, at nearly 1 million (not including the Republican Guard). Any invasion would have led to a significant loss of life for any invading force. The American public, at this point, would have not been able to stomach huge casualties.

Positing a conspiracy theory about the US' actions during Desert Storm is lazy and dishonest.  

"Saddam led a Secular State which allowed women freedoms, which are denied now in the Isamic world including Kuwait."

Yes, I am well aware of the freedoms denied by Kuwait and other Islamic states. However, these states are visions of paradise compared to what happened to some Iraqis during Saddam's reign. I see you use the term 'secular' as if you are stating this as a virtue of Iraq that trumps other states in the Middle East. However, although secularism is a virtue, it is not a good enough description to encompass pre Saddam Iraq. I think that totalitarian is a bit more accurate. The reign of terror in Iraq would have made Hitler proud. He killed over 400,000 Iraqis in internal persecutions alone, massacred the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, repressed the Shia majority and gave special favours to the Sunni minority (which puts a hole in the idea that Iraq was really secular) and used chemical weapons! Iraq's religious neighbours were far better than Iraq under Saddam, although they are obviously guilty of  similar crimes.

"I agree that the only Statesman in the Cuba Crisis was Kruschev and not that hawk Kennedy and his brother Robert. But for Kruschev, the trigger-happy Kennedy could have precipitated an unnecessary nuclear conflict. 
As for reading Wendt I think you gave a pretty good summary of his thoughts. As I've said in another thread, thank goodess academics only advise otherwise we'ed be in even more serious trouble."
 
Firstly, I never said the Khrushchev was a statesman. His behaviour was what effectively started the Cuban Missile Crisis. As for Jack and Bobby Kennedy, they were the doves within the American camp! The advice of General Curtis Le May was to attack Cuba, but the Kennedys resisted. If anything, the Kennedys were the statesmen. You really do need to read more about it, you have been shown up to be an amateur.
 
As for your repetitive bashing of academics, I can only again say that I'd rather have their advice than the advice of ignorant semi literate numbskulls like yourself.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#31)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:30:26 PM GMT

You've just lost the argument laurence if you can't keep your cool and have to resort to invectives and personal attacks on contributors.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#33)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM GMT

It wasn't an attack, it was an accurate description of you and your position. You lost the arguement when you suggested the invasion of nuclear state.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#35)

by jkitleft on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:14:23 PM GMT

there is no way we can invade Pakistan. We need tese people before the Taliban controls ven more of the drug fields in Afghanistan, or starts to form bases in western Pakistan.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#38)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:26:00 PM GMT

Scroll up, I agree.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#42)

by swatantra on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:27:02 AM GMT

To deal with Afghanistan effectively, jk, you have to deal first with Pakistan. I'm listening to 'Across Continents'
R4 with Kate Adie; everything I've said is being said by Anne Leslie and the two other commentators. You can download their podcast.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#43)

by swatantra on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:33:40 AM GMT

That should have been 'Talking Politics' with Kate Adie. She's now followed on with the Kenyan Crisis in 'From our own Correspondent'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#36)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:18:26 PM GMT

You might find it useful to tune into ITV3 10pm tonight. They're showing the best film ever on the dangers of nuclear war and the cold war: 'Dr Strangelove or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bomb'. It has things to say about the nulclear threat, 'deterence' and rogue Army Generals. And you still need to learn to moderate your language. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#37)

by laurencemarshall on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:25:06 PM GMT

Yes, I've seen it. It's very good, inaccurate but good. You also need to read Professor Lawrence Freedman's 'Kennedy's Wars' and a whole host of books on IR before you should ever comment on anything to do with foreign affairs again.

Also, you need to cover your dislike of Islam better, it's going to do you no favours.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#39)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM GMT

I have no problem with Islam so long as it is not militant.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#40)

by rwendland on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:38:56 AM GMT

> As for Jack and Bobby Kennedy, they were the doves within the American camp!

I wouldn't go that far! After all Bobby was chairing meetings orchestrating what would now be called "state terrorism" against Cuba, during the year or so before the missile crisis. Luckily for historians the CIA (covering their asses?) minuted some of these meetings.

eg on 4 Oct 1962 we have Bobby saying "priority should be given to trying to mount sabotage operations", and records indiacte that even after being called off during the missile crisis one 6-man CIA team blew up a "Cuban industrial facility" on 8 Nov 1962.

eg in Autumn 1961 Jack and Bobby decide the Cuban sugar crop should be destroyed, but 19 Jan 1962 CIA minutes record "United States Government was precluded from destroying the current sugar crop" because "we were late and overly optimistic".

Imagine the fuss if another govt got up to this kind of sabotage.

But I do agree that Bobby kept control of the operation himself, and away from the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were hell-bent on invading Cuba.

It was a bold move by Kruschev to protect Cuba's revolution and create a missile site comparable to Turkey for the US. It worked out well for the USSR, but not so good for Kruschev personally as the US removing the missiles from Turkey had to be kept quiet.

I am puzzled why Bobby and Jack so pushed the sabotage/terrorism approach, but tried to restrain the military after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. They don't seem to have expected the USSR to deploy nuclear weapons in Cuba, so why ferment a counter-revolution rather than go with the straight-forward invasion the military wanted? I'm attracted to the theory that they owed some payback to the Cuban mafia in Florida, but maybe that is too fanciful.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#41)

by laurencemarshall on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:48:38 AM GMT

"> As for Jack and Bobby Kennedy, they were the doves within the American camp!

I wouldn't go that far! After all Bobby was chairing meetings orchestrating what would now be called "state terrorism" against Cuba, during the year or so before the missile crisis. Luckily for historians the CIA (covering their asses?) minuted some of these meetings."

I actually meant that they were the doves within the context of the Cuban missile crisis itself! Apologies for the lack of clarity, but I wasn't going to go into the whole foreign policy record of the Kennedys re Cuba.

As for the reasons why the Kennedys pushed for the clandestine approach to Cuba, there are a few I know of off the top of my head. Firstly, Bobby was obsessed with the idea of counter insurgency. He even took to spy novels with passion. It's documented in the Schlesinger and Evans book on him I think. More importantly though, after the Bay of Pigs, it is documented that the Kennedys distrusted the military. Perhaps they saw the counter insurgency route as one which wouldn't cost them anything if it failed?


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#10)

by doctordunc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM GMT

Good heavens - this is quite a debate!  Both sides of the debate are a very long way from my thinking, so it's quite an interesting read.


The initial post is quite near the mark I think - this has been a failure of US and western policy (the decision to back a military dictator as part of the 'war on terror' is typical US realpolitik, but in the context of the build up to the war on Iraq was lifting the veil on the usual hypocrisy just a little too clearly!  We may never know all the circumstances leading up to Ms. Bhutto's murder, but the game-playing of western leaders has played its part.)  But the later debate about invading Pakistan (absolute madness!) and whether you build democracy by aid (a sort of Walt Rostow approach, I guess) or by sanctions and bombs, etc. is really out there!  It's amazing that we are so immersed in the imperialist mindset that the parameters of the debate - even on a Labour site - do not come close to encouraging a socialist approach to democracy, rather than one that is fundamentally dependent on western capitalism, or that is delivered at the barrel of a gun.


Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#11)

by jkitleft on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:58:29 PM GMT

Then can you please encourage us, and tell us, a socialist approach to democracy?

Socialism (although I am far less ideological at the moment), can be encouraged at the same time as having incongruous views on foreign policy. Why? Because the USA has only one elected socialist official out of 537 federal branch members elected. Many Russians would rather spit on the bodies of socialists, then elect them, perhaps seeing them as connected to the old Communist regime. China is abandoning any Communist principles (if they ever had them, which I doubt). India is slightly different, but just because the label of the left-wing parties say 'social-democratic', they can not be seen as anything near the principles that many left-wingers have in the UK. This is true of many 'Socialist' parties currently, and historically, as they carry the social conservative burden that comes with being in certain more 'traditional' countries.

What was my point? These are four countries significantly important internationally, and in the region of Pakistan and it's neighbouring countries. Socialism can be promoted, but we have to work in the perameters of the situation that not all countries will ever be 'socialist', and even if they are, some will be extreme, some will be tyrranical, some will be personality cults, some, even if they ignore the above three, will have no desire to change some of the more traditional elements of their country, into the more familiar elements of a western Liberal Democracy. It is utopian thinking to suggest that all countries will have what western liberals/socialists envision to be the centre-left ideology of a liberal democracy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#12)

by doctordunc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:10:13 AM GMT

I'm never going to work within such parameters: I'm an international socialist, and the aim of my political activities is to see all countries socialist (and I'm proud of it!)  I'm sure there will be local and regional variations to socialism, and that's actually rather my point: the debate on this thread seems to have been about ways of imposing democracy.  Imposing democracy is an oxymoron and is the 21st century equivalent of the 'civilising' mission of earlier imperialists.  Whether you deliver imperialism at the barrel of a gun, or through vast aid programmes, transnational financial institutions and transnational corporations, neither can really bring democracy because both concepts are fundamentally anti-democratic.  

A socialist approach to democracy is one which recognises that democracy travels from below (you might also call it real democracy).  We can encourage it through solidarity and international co-operation, and through choosing not to support and succour anti-democratic forces (of various kinds, both local and imperialist) and we can only hamstring it by playing games of realpolitik, fostering dependency on former colonial masters or drawing up blueprints in the west and imposing them militarily.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#13)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:16:05 AM GMT

Thats a cop out if I ever heard one; its guilt by ommission, its standing on the sidelines and condoning irregularies, its aiding and abetting undemocratic regimes. Take my word for it, they'll take advantage of you; we used to call these by-standers 'fellow travellers' in the good old socialist days. Then we woke up and started criticisng regimes directly, saying we weren't prepared to put up with that kind of nonsense anymore.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#15)

by doctordunc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM GMT

"it's aiding and abetting undemocratic regimes" - funny, that's the exact opposite of what I said, but feel free to create your own version of my arguments if you'd rather.

It is not a cop out, it is a massive responsibility. 

Those in power who promote imposing 'democracy' whether through aid-with-conditions or militarily are not stupid, they are fully aware that such actions produce nothing remotely like democracy.  What they are actually spreading is capitalism, and if you are a capitalist it is a very sensible thing to spread (it gives you profits and markets, which after all are very important to capitalists) but as socialists we know that all its engines are anti-democratic.

So we stand in solidarity with those who fight for socialism and democracy all around the world, and we give no support, succour nor cover (I repeat this as it seemed to pass you by last time) to anti-democratic forces.  This is the tragic irony of course, because those who would impose a pantomime version of democracy (in order to secure capitalism) invariably support anti-democratic forces, whether it be in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, South-East Asia: if there is a pliable or amenable military dictator then they are generally preferred to the uncertainty and insecurity of genuine democracy.  Democracy is only encouraged once corporations and imperialist bodies have gained sufficient control of the economy of a country for democracy to be of no real use or service (and therefore threat) at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#16)

by jkitleft on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM GMT

many 'socialists' can enfore puppet, despotic regimes as well. Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro barely even qualify as socialists. Many often use it as a shield to make it look like they're standing up to 'the great enemy: America' (which by the way, is a discrimantory element somehow allowed by the Left, despite often it's infatuation with nauseating political-correctness). I'm not talking about Michelle Bachelet, or Christina Kerchner de Fernandez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, etc. etc. (despite my issues with some of these people). So many left-wingers are guilty of promoting undemocratic regimes as well.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#21)

by doctordunc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:14:46 PM GMT

I'm sorry but an 'infatuation with nauseating political-correctness'??  Give me a break! 

As for the substance:
Did Ghandi discriminate against the British?  The ferocity of US imperialism has been of such a pitch that to talk about organisation against the US government in Latin America as 'a discriminatory element' would be laughable were it not so serious. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#22)

by jkitleft on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:47:28 PM GMT

I don't diagree about imperialism, but there is a strong sense of anti-Americanism from many on the Left at the moment. Am I pro-America? Yes and No. Do I however think, that often to be seen criticising countries may be seen by many, to be imperialist, or colonial? I think some people can interpret it as that, yes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#17)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:20:07 PM GMT

I quite understand that democracy cannot be established overnight where there is no culture or history of democracy. But we have too many regimes across the globe that are feudal, autocratic, monarchical, despotic, tribal. We play safe because they are more stable than the fledgling democracies that would replace them. The West would prefer to deal with stable dictatorships because it knows that there is certainty and continuity. But we should be doing everything in our power to bring about a move towards greater freedoms and liberty for their peoples. And that means being very vocal in our criticism of their practices, eg the Islamic monarchies and republics that deny certain freedoms to their peoples.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#18)

by jkitleft on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:31:35 PM GMT

Too often, to criticise a country's regime, which may be dominated by non-'white' (what an offensive term, it is not even a colour, let alone a race) faces, is seen as racist. If I want to criticise bigoted elements of a country, is has far more legitimacy, then to then call me racist in the counter-arguement. As if to say that people are forming hierarchial structures, to say which form of bigotry outweighs the other, which I assume, as Socialists, you know better than to do?

These parameters are needed, as I think it is wrong to feel any nostalgia, for such off-branches of socialism (or western interpretations of socialism), just because they say they are socialist. There is a sense of hero-worshipping anyone who calls themselves socialist, even if they are fascists, like Mr Castro. If we move away from this, and recognise that socialism doesn't epitomise democracy or vice versa, it might be clearer to understand the intricate details of international relations.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#20)

by doctordunc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:09:52 PM GMT

Fidel Castro is not a fascist.

I'm sorry, I'm prepared to debate this with you, but it has to be on a basis of actually reading what the other says.  In no place did I suggest anybody was racist (I think you were also the first to use the term 'non-white'?)  so let's discuss the actual argument.  Furthermore, I do not see any reason for placing parameters on reasonable argument.

What people call themselves is irrelevant, what is at issue is what people actually try to do.

There is clearly a problem with terminology: I do think that socialism eptomises democracy and vice versa, and do not believe you can have democracy without socialism (nor socialism without democracy); you can make of that what you will!

I think socialism is the best form of political organisation that is possible and therefore can think of no sensible reason why I would not wish it for everybody.  But to impose it on anybody would be impossible, because socialism is definitively anti-imperialist and therefore cannot be imposed (however much some forms of socialist organisation, perhaps in the economy or whatever, may be employed in that subjugated state).

I certainly have no interest in being nostalgic, nor in hero-worshipping, but I do think you have to be careful to balance justified criticisms of any government (whatever it calls itself) with scepticism at anti-socialist, pro-capitalist propaganda.  I am sure there are legitimate criticisms of Hugo Chavez, but while the full weight of the US 'cold' war machine is cranked up against his government, I would certainly be very careful to consider all criticisms very carefully and seek to hear all sides of the argument.

So - this is a useful and important debate to have, but let's have the actual debate, not invent another one about 'political correctness' or whatever.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#23)

by jkitleft on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:04:13 PM GMT

Fidel Castro. Many use the 'their healthcare is fantastic' arguement to defend his authoritarian regime. This does not however, validate it. Look at the human rights record, it's disgusting. Am I being fed this from American sources? No. I came to this conclusion myself.

Where did I incuate that you were calling me a racist Duncan? I was merely mentioning it in a post, in reply to Swatantra criticising some of the more despotic regmes of other countries, as part of a wider arguement, if it's a shaky debating style, then I'll try and correct it. I'm not placing parameters on arguements or debate, but merely in the situation of international relations, that we have to come to terms with the fact that not all people are going to agree with you, or I, a thesis proved by the fact that we are having a debate right now.

I agree with you that what people call themselves is irrelevant. It's rather my point. That some people can take a 'left-wing' label, all too seriously.

I don't think that Socialism epitomises democracy and vise verca, but let me agree with you in saying that you cannot have democracy without Socialism, and vise verca. This was a fact, that Rosa Luxembourg pointed out, that the Leninist Bolsheviks, all too soon forgot.

If you want to wish socialism on everybody, that is your democratic right to do so. But, we have to remember that certain contrarians, may not always agree with the concept, and so a utopian version may be an unreachable goal.


I don't believe in criticism just because they're 'socialist'. If they're demagogues, it makes a key difference. For instance, people seem to buy into the cult of Che Geuvara, forgetting that he proceeded over the show trials of people getting executed, and rounded up Cuban minorities and had them put in labour camps. The more Kissenger-esque version of this, is to panic when a Marxist, like Allende get's elected in Chile, and then put a Stalinist, autocratic, fascist, militarist like Pinochet in.

I was merely mentioning racism, and political correctness, with no intention of making it the central debate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#24)

by doctordunc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:02:58 PM GMT


The Cuban revolution was a struggle for democracy against the repulsive dictatorship of Batiste.  There are many criticisms that can be levelled at the government in Cuba.  I disagree with Castro, Brown and Blair equally about restricting civil liberties in the fight against terrorism, but let's not forget that Cuba has,
since 1959 been the target of over 680 terrorist

attacks causing three and a half thousand deaths 2000 plus severe injuries; we're talking about bomb

attacks, assassination attempts, attacks on ships, hijackings,

the introduction of germs and pests to farmland, etc, etc.  This has been carried out by emigre groups but with the full support and funding of a foreign government.  I disagree with the detention of Cubans who have aided that foreign government, just as I disagree with the detention in Cuba of people accused of aiding Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

While I fear that without the restrictions on civil liberties, the Cuban revolution would have long ago been defeated, and Cuba would have been found itself with the civil rights records of capitalist Latin American states like Pinochet's Chile, or Colombia - I would still (hopeless romantic that I am) have preferred the revolution to be perfect and fail.  Indeed, the most successful form of counter-revolution available is to try to transform the leaders of revolutions into reluctant despots.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#25)

by jkitleft on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:30:21 PM GMT

However, despite my sympathies for the exiled community in Miami, I of course condemn these brutal terrorist attacks, which occasionally, briefly looked like it would spill out onto the streets of the USA. I diasgree rather unequally with certain leaders about their restrictins on civil liberties. Primarily, because some are worse violations of civil rights than others. Some, have had no such participation in these actions.

Oscar Elias Biscet is being locked up on a 25 year sentence because he is an advacate for democratic freedoms. One of many.Communication is heavily monitered, and censored, or only accessible through government permission. Foreign journalists are systematically expelled. Very little chance to defend yourself in court.

For all the Left's talk of New Labour's disregard for worker's rights or trade union rights, there is no right to strike. Doesn't that put things in perspective, in a way that makes Margaret Thatcher look like Lech Walesa. I don't see any harrasment or detention of Derek Simpson either.

Freedom of Assembly, Speech, Expression are barely even terms in Cuba. Doubtless you can find other necessary freedoms that do not reach the shores of Cuba.

Cuba has improved with regards to religious, women, and gay rights. So they now all have the rights that everyone else has. Not alot.



[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#26)

by doctordunc on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM GMT

I don't know how we've got onto Cuba on a thread about Pakistan, and as somebody who believes passionately in freedom of assemby and expression, is a vehement opponent of the death penalty and a supporter of the legitimacy of civil disobedience, I am rather reluctant to become this site's "apologist" for the Cuban government.  However, I may as well fall into the trap!  Cuba is a small, poor country that has been subject to a completely unjustified siege for 50 years or more.  There is much to criticise it about - some of these things are direct attempts to try and protect this state and it's philosophy from siege, terrorism and war; some of it is not and is more basically unjustified.  Amongst the great number of things to criticise, there are things to praise - free, universal healthcare of a very high standard; a high level of education; the prominent place of trade unions and role for workers' representatives (despite obvious criticisms); it's high standing in the world league for representation of women; the active and responsive local democracy.  Of course it is not some kind of workers' paradise - it is a very poor country where there are considerable restrictions on people's freedoms (wherever we may seek to place all the blame for this) - but comparing like with like, many countries that had no seige, and that embraced US hegemony and imperialism, and with greater natural resources than Cuba have had less genuine development and improvements for ordinary people; have far worse civil and human rights records and have extraordinarily unequal access to health, education, etc. - and actually have less democracy too.  Now that is, in some ways, a small boast - "there are worse places" - but in the context of it's history, it is actually pretty significant.  I do not propose the Cuban model to other countries, but I do think that developing nations should look at what has worked, and observe how things can be done without the 'assistance' of trans-national corporations, etc.  However, the US government recognises that too and will stop at nothing to prevent nations from following such paths.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#19)

by doctordunc on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:58:40 PM GMT

Well I agree with you about that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Rethinking Pakistan (#14)

by Curlew on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:37:04 AM GMT

Britain and the west can reap what it sows.  We leave an old colonial country but ensure we split it up, usually under religious criteria using the old divide and conquer idea that they will always be dependent on us if they are held back by infighting.  The mistake was made in the middle east and with the sub-continent.

No-one has a right to force a political ideal on another "people" and so I agree with Dunc on this.  After all if the west were to chase the terror out of Pakistan it will just move to another base, ad infinitum.  Examine why they are unhappy, why they can recruit so many - and then resolve those issues. It can be the only solution.


[ Parent ]

Rethinking Pakistan | 43 comments (43 topical)