|
Over the past couple
of months I have made several objections to the kind of thinking espoused
on this site. In every case I have given facts or reasons to back up my
opinions. My claims have either been ignored completely or given only a
token mention. Some of my claims were as follows: that Islamic
fundamentalists are different in nature and degree than Christian
fundamentalists; that there is no such thing as a “war economy” in the
sense that seems to be accepted among members of this group; that the Americans
have been magnanimous in building up states such as Japan, even to the
point of economic rivalry; that military intervention in a foreign country
can sometimes be justified.
I have also posed some
important questions, such as these: how are the Ugandan peacekeepers in Somalia different in intention from the NATO
troops in Afghanistan?
Most important, what actions should developed western nations take in a
place like Afghanistan?
I am not so arrogant
as to suggest that my opinions are necessarily right. However, they are
tenable claims, backed up with reasons and examples, and I still await a
reasoned counter-response from….well, from anyone!
I have suggested in
the past that the thinking of many contributors on this site resembles a
religion. The lack of direct engagement with reasoned opposition is further
evidence of this. To the religious, other opinions may prevail outside the
chosen group, but what is essential is that the dogma within that group
continues. And so we have Javed Chaudry in posting
#81 simply ignoring the points that I have made and the facts that I have
presented, and continuing to push his rusty old barrow about imperialism,
with no apparent evidence for his belief apart from the claim about
American geopolitical plans for South Asia
being based on a planned pipeline. If normal argument is a kind of warfare,
Javed’s method is the guerilla kind: don’t engage
the enemy directly, but rather skulk in doorways
and fire occasional potshots. Avoid direct confrontation; you will lose,
because the enemy has more firepower (sorry, Rashid – there I go being
vertical again!).
I find the “evidence”
of the Afghan oil pipeline an interesting diversion. I have struck this
kind of thinking many times, especially among young leftists. It is a kind
of psychological trick (not always entirely conscious), and here is how it
works. Research a subject just thoroughly enough to find a little-known
idea which supports your thesis and outlook. Cling to that one idea, find
out as much as you can about it, and emphasize its importance. It is
essential that most people know little or nothing about it. This means that
when you mention it in any kind of dispute, listeners will see you as an
authority and many will come to see the situation in the same way you do.
This approach is
almost always accompanied by supercilious comments such as, “If you look
deeply….” and “You don’t really believe that, do you?” and “You have to
read beyond the headlines…” and “Don’t believe the propaganda…” and
especially “The mass media are part of the plan…” It is most effective
because it makes any disputant seem superficial and poorly read. Only you
have investigated deeply enough and found the gospel truth.
We can see this tone
in the following words from Javed:
“By now the answer
should be clear to any one who has been a bit observant during the last few
years and any one who is aware of American hegemony during the last century
on the lines which several European countries have used for their
colonizing techniques…”
This asserts that
anyone who disagrees simply doesn’t have enough knowledge of the matter;
that the truly observant can only agree. This reeks of arrogance. In fact,
I suggest the opposite is probably true: that those who see a range of
motives in western actions in Afghanistan
and Pakistan,
some self-interested and others genuinely benign,
are closer to the truth. American hegemony? Nonsense. Yes, America has
been the most powerful nation for the best part of a hundred years, but
never has the world witnessed such benevolence coupled with such power. The
Europeans colonized, but the Americans did not.
Interestingly, my
interpretation of the South Asian situation is contained in the William
Pfaff article Javed himself provides a link for. I am surprised that he has
included it. I took the trouble of reading it, and the gist is that western
purposes in Afghanistan
are confused; that the nations who are represented there have not
considered carefully enough what their role is. This is hardly a
contentious claim, and I agree with it myself. Nowhere does Pfaff write or
even imply criticism of western intention in the region – only badly framed
western policy.
Facts are strangers to
Javed. For example, I do get rather tired of people trotting out casualty
statistics about Iraq.
The truth is that no one knows. The three most frequently quoted surveys
are from the Lancet, the Iraqi Ministry of Health, and the Opinion Research
Business survey team. All three vary widely. Why then does Javed glibly
state “after killing a million people”? I think loose statements like this
are usually accepted, simply because anyone who suggests that the figures
might be wrong can be accused of not caring about the suffering.
Javed, just as glibly,
states that “the oil business is now in the hands of the Anglo-American
conglomerates”. Really? I don’t think so. I am no expert on this matter,
but I do know that the tender for developing the new oil fields around Kirkuk was awarded to
DNO, the Norwegian company. Norway,
which refused to participate in the war to oust Saddam! How much fairer can
the Americans be? If anyone makes a claim like Javed’s
they had better research the matter to know that they have got the facts
right….unless, of course, they know that in the church where they will
deliver the sermon, no one will question the comfortable dogma.
Proportioning of oil
revenues is always a contentious matter. Imagine you own land with oil on
it, and I have none on my land, but I have the equipment and expertise to
exploit your oil reserves. I suggest coming onto your property to exploit
those reserves. What would be a fair deal? Tricky question, to which there
simply is no answer; there is only negotiation. There is always someone who
will see any deal as unfair. In 1952, the Iraqi government did a deal with
foreign oil companies for a 50/50 split. To me, that doesn’t sound too bad.
However, many Iraqi nationalists said that the “pro-western” government had
sold the country short. However, I suspect some would have said the same if
the foreign interlopers had received as little as a dime.
In cases like this,
most people seem to believe that the oil companies hold all the trump
cards, but this isn’t true. The governments that hold the oil reserves can
make laws that are binding on foreign companies, and this gives the
government an advantage, if anything, in negotiations.
I find Javed’s whole paragraph about the American role in Iraq
bitterly, cynically unfair. All the destruction in Iraq has,
of course, been a terrible tragedy, and the Americans have been guilty of
gross misjudgments and sometimes even cruelty. However, they cannot be held
responsible for Shi’ite-Sunni rivalry or ancient
tribal hatred, which has caused most of the despair. The uncomfortable
truth for many in the Islamic world is that the US vision for Iraq – a
state in which all groups would be fairly and democratically represented –
was, and remains, the best long-term solution. For what else is there?
I particularly despise
the assertion by some western liberals that democracy is a western concept,
which has no place in other cultures. You Pakistani-Canadians, you seem to
like it, don’t you? Yet you are culturally different from Anglo-Saxon (or
French) Canadians. Why then should democracy have no place in your homeland
or in other Islamic countries? Certainly, it takes different forms in
different places, but we already know that the rest of the democratic world
can accept such differences, including the Americans. Our democracy here in
New Zealand is different
from the US
system, but I have yet to see battalions of Marines pouring out of landing
craft and onto our beaches.
What underlies almost
all Javed’s assertions is an implied belief that
it serves US interests to keep the undeveloped world downtrodden. This is a
common belief, but it makes no sense. The business of America is
business, and business does not happen unless people have enough disposable
money to buy products. This is what really gives the lie to this
nonsensical idea that developed countries, especially the USA,
benefit from war. It is a fundamental tenet of economics that you have to
have customers. People who are desperately poor,
and people who live in war zones (often the same thing) cannot buy US
products…or any other exporter’s.
Javed mentions the “neocon-Zionists”. “Neo-con” has entered general usage
now, and is of course something of a weasel-word. However, I don’t object
to it too much, and I am even happy to label myself one. However, “Zionist”
is more sinister. It always says a lot about the person who uses it. It
usually implies that the speaker believes some or all of the following:
that the Protocol of the Elders of Zion is a valid document; that the Jews
have a conspiracy to take over the world; that the US
government is in cahoots with these Jewish conspirators and are in the
pockets of the all-powerful American Jewish lobby. All of these claims are
dangerous and pernicious nonsense.
Let me take the final
one and examine it in a little detail, because it is the most prevalent,
especially in the Islamic world. There is, of course, a powerful Jewish
lobby in Washington.
But American politics works (unfortunately) partly by lobbies of all kinds:
the gun lobby, the gay lobby, the hog-raisers’
lobby. If there isn’t an Islamic lobby, then get one soon and join the
party! As for the power of the Jewish lobby, it isn’t as influential as
most people think. For example, the Israelis realize that their large,
strategic nukes would be useless in any escalated conflict with their neighbours, and last year discreetly petitioned the
Bush administration for more useful, strategic nukes. No deal – they were
refused. Back in the 1980s Jewish leaders complained bitterly that the
Reagan administration intended to offer AWACS surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
No change – the deal went ahead. So you can see that they are just another
lobby, which sometimes gets its way and sometimes doesn’t.
Javed’s
final paragraph is most revealing:
“Those who have not
read history, must read now and find out why some
countries have done well while others have no chance to develop and recover
from their mistakes or misfortunes.”
Absolutely true! But
let us analyse what this means. I have read a lot
of history, and a lot of other things besides, and I am vehemently opposed
to what Javed advocates. I lived for five years in Taiwan, the
nation which has had the most explosive growth in recorded economic
history. I was there at the time of the 9/11 outrage. The Taiwanese were
shocked and perplexed by the attack. I remember one Taiwanese friend, a
businessman in his sixties, asking me if I understood the motive behind it.
I played the devil’s advocate and endeavored, with as open a mind as
possible, to explain the disillusionment and the anti-US feeling that
prompted the attack. He still looked puzzled. I cannot remember all his
words, but his response went something like this: “After WW2, Taiwan became a US “client state”. There was
some opposition, but it was almost never violent. Generally we accepted
that the Americans were here to help us, not to suppress us. Most of us, in
fact, wanted to copy America.
That’s why Taipei taxis are bright yellow –
we wanted to be an oriental New
York. When I was young, only one child in my
class wore shoes – the others were too poor. We decided to give the world
what it wanted. At first, this was cheap plastic toys, then
it was bathroom fittings and collapsible clothes racks and thousands of
other items. We earned surplus capital, which we invested in improved
education, research and infrastructure. Eventually we went high-tech and
ended up a sophisticated society, rivaling America itself. Why don’t these
Arabs do the same? Do they think that the world is interested in an old
book?”
What is perhaps most
interesting about the Taiwanese case is that their traditional culture is
probably more dissimilar to European or western culture than Iraqi or
Afghan culture is. The Taiwanese should have had a more difficult task than
almost anyone. Some would say that their modern economic success has been
at the expense of their culture and identity; that they have become
flat-nosed westerners. That is probably true, but who cares? They certainly
don’t.
The lesson here, for
Javed and others who share his beliefs, is that the reason some countries
have done well is that they have looked to the future and set practical
national goals, based on an analysis of what they can offer in the
international marketplace. The nations that have failed are the ones which
are inflexible, ideological, rooted in tradition, burdened by a victim
mentality, and see any foreign participation in their countries’ affairs as
interference. The further Javed and his co-religionists move towards a more
moderate “Taiwanese” outlook, the more they will cease being part of the
problem and join forces with the solution.
This has been my last
posting, unless anything appears on this site which is sufficiently
reasonable to warrant a response. I wish you all well, whatever your views.
Peter
|