When a San Francisco Chronicle editorial (Feb 7) likens a country of 172 million people to an episod
By Mosharraf Zaidi
February 10, 2009
When a San Francisco Chronicle editorial (Feb 7) likens a country of 172 million people to an episode of "24", someone in that country might be well advised to take notice. Yet Pakistan seems intent on not learning from its mistakes. At some level, spectators of Pakistan must admire the obdurate commitment of this nation to repeat, ad nauseam, its weekly existential oops-I-did-agains. We had better hope they do. Else the only reaction observers can have to Pakistan's poor excuse for foreign policy is to turn away in embarrassment. Pakistan can ill-afford for its friends (and foes) to turn away. The world's attention might make Pakistanis hot under the collar, but it just might be the country's best friend in these difficult times.
Pakistan's response to two recent stimuli should illustrate beyond any reasonable doubt that when it comes to handling the solemn responsibility of governing a country of 172 million people, the state is either unwilling, or incapable, or catastrophically, both.
On the appointment of Richard Holbrooke, one of the coldest and most efficient international negotiators alive, the Pakistani state began by articulating policy through recycled rhetoric in yet another presidential op-ed, and then went ahead and released from house arrest, the world's most famous nuclear bomb maker.
On the Mumbai terror attacks, after fudging the firing of Gen Peacemaker Durrani and confirming the obvious tensions between the various heroes of democracy that are running Pakistan, the government decided to blame Bangladesh. President Asif Ali Zardari chose his core advisers and cabinet very well when the PPP won the election, but this troupe is now flat out of tricks. The Washington Post op-ed of Jan 28 titled, "Partnering with Pakistan", should rank as a low point in the careers of Zardari advisers. It is one thing to be self-aware, but the PPP brain trust seems to be in some sort of dervish of self-consciousness. Who needs Sumit Ganguly rallying the Indian diaspora in Newsweek, when Pakistan's own president calls his country, "the most critical external problem facing the new administration," in the Washington Post?
The PPP writers' guild then goes into overdrive, claiming that the South Asia region's problems are "residual consequences of past western support for dictatorships and disregard for economic and social development." If blaming the west for ignoring Pakistan's economic and social development seems absurd, it is because it is absurd. Perhaps Pakistan might be better served by examining its own neglect of economic and social development. The narrative then shifts gears, blaming the global terrorism scare on America's abandoning Pakistan after the 1980s. Again, rather one-sided, and completely ignoring the rabid ideology that continues to find such deep resonance in Pakistan. So much so, that instead of moral outrage, there is national silence, as Swat is overrun by zealots with no agenda other than the outright destruction of the economic, aesthetic and social crown jewel of NWFP.
The begging bowl comes out soon after, with an appeal to pass the long-awaited $1.5 billion a year aid package -- what I have called the Joe Biden discount, for setting Pakistan's price much lower than most of the US's serious allies around the world. The begging too goes awry with the fallacious demand for regional opportunity zones, supporting the ridiculous notion that FATA will become a haven of foreign investment, as soon as bureaucrats in Washington DC, Islamabad, and Peshawar conspire to snap their fingers and say abracadabra. Topping off Pakistan's wish list in the Washington Post is the standard request for hardware, no doubt in the hope that the care package Mr Holbrooke brings with him this week contains several dozen Apache helicopters, and thousands of night vision goggles.
Unsurprisingly, Kashmir is mentioned, but with no new ideas on how it can be resolved. A nominal reference to perhaps the most urgent bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, water, is made at the end, perhaps as a gesture of good will towards the dwindling dozens of middle class and starry-eyed PPP sympathizers, who continue to live in anticipation of a moment of redemption.
Having set this familiar table for Mr Holbrooke, what does the government then decide to do? Something that would prove that, in the words of President Zardari, "we need no lectures on our commitment. This is our war" would have been nice. The government's idea, a mere ten days after recycling old promises in the Washington Post op-ed, was to arrange the release of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan from house arrest. Good news for Dr Qadeer, who is a Pakistani hero, despite having admitted to nuclear proliferation. Bad news for people who are scared of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands. But best of all, great news for those fear-mongers that hyperventilate about the security of Pakistan's own nukes -- from the Indian political mainstream to journalists who prefer juicy headlines over facts when covering Pakistan. With the stink of David E Sanger's New York Times' alarmist pieces on the security of Pakistani nukes' still pungent in the air (Nov 11, 2007 and Jan 8, 2009 if you are keeping score), it is a mystery as to why Pakistan chose this moment to sign off on Dr Qadeer's release. Pakistani nuclear security experts have tried valiantly to counter the sabre-rattlers. Defending this release however, will take an entirely different kind of expertise: comedy. Perhaps the Foreign Office can enlist the spirits of George Carlin and Richard Pryor as spokespersons, for surely, with Pakistan's economic troubles the country can ill-afford the still-living Chris Rocks of the world.
Meanwhile, the only thing that has been handled worse by Pakistan than Mr Holbrooke's appointment and visit has been the response to the Mumbai terror attacks. Continuing the tsunami of poorly timed and poorly coordinated announcements, on Feb 5, Pakistan essentially announced that it plans to blame Bangladesh for allowing its soil to be used for the planning of the Mumbai attacks. Classy, especially when seen in the context of Pakistan's unrelenting efforts to find a hook (any hook) within Muslim India, upon which to hang the majority of the blame for Mumbai. Pakistan is confirming now for a third generation of South Asian Muslims, what was felt and experienced by the two previous post-1947 generations: that Pakistan has nothing remotely to do with the interests of South Asia's nearly half a billion overwhelmingly poor Muslims, but is in fact limited to defending the narrow interests of its military, bureaucratic, feudal and pseudo-capitalist elite. Founding father Mr Jinnah would be so proud.
Pakistanis always seem to be a little bit gobsmacked by the distrust and sometimes outright contempt that they experience upon meeting Indian Muslims and Bangladeshis. Let there be no more suspense. Well before push comes to shove, Pakistan is eager to throw any and all "brothers" under the bus, Indian Muslims first.
Perhaps the most worrisome of Pakistan's travails are that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell Pakistani incompetence and Hindu extremism apart. Just consider the confusion faced by analysts in trying to distinguish between the speeches of the blood-lusty BJP's super-Hindu Narendra Modi and those of Pakistan's listless super-nothing leaders. Hard to fathom? Not if you could have heard Mr Modi hold court at the BJP National Council meeting at Nagpur on Feb 8: "Such a big attack is not possible without local support. Who is stopping the UPA government (present Indian government) from taking action against those local elements?" Perhaps Pakistan doesn't need Chris Rock after all. Narendra Modi to the rescue.
