Daily Times

Imam Khomeini’s socially regressive and reactionary worldview was second only to the Saudi Wahhabis. President Carter was hoping that he and Khomeini, as men of God, could form a partnership to defeat communism! Khomeini, however, hated the US more violently than he loathed the Soviet Union. A third fact thus arrived in international politics while the Cold War was raging.

The Soviet Red Army marched into Afghanistan in December 1979 to help their beleaguered Afghan comrades who had captured power in April 1978. The Afghan communists did a lot to improve the conditions of women in Afghanistan and general development was accelerated. However, this was the opportunity that the Americans had been waiting for to avenge the humiliation suffered in Vietnam. Secretary of State Brzezinski masterminded a ‘jihad’ in partnership with Saudi Arabia and other Arab and Muslim nations. Pakistan was to implement it in the field. General Ziaul Haq deftly negotiated that the Pakistan army would exclusively implement jihad in the field, a task he delegated to the ISI.

After Ronald Reagan came to power, economic and military aid to Pakistan increased enormously. Thus the most unabashed programme to create an international army of Islamic warriors was pursued with relish by the CIA and other US agencies. China supported it with money and transit facilities. Zia saw to it that the US criticism of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme remained muted.

The Red Army withdrew from Afghanistan by February 1989; the Soviet Union and its eastern satellites disintegrated soon afterward. Thus the Cold War had been won by the US without a single American dying in that proxy war. It was an amazing achievement. From the American point of view, the world had been saved from being subordinated to a totalitarian ideology. However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and jihadism that accompanied it were the costs that came along. Only time will tell if using political Islam was in the long run was a wise decision. In international relations, often ad hoc decisions and moves become inevitable, thus making nonsense of long-term planning and strategy. This is the argument I have advanced in my new book, Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013.

At any rate, George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 frittered away the goodwill and sympathy that al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had generated for the US. Moreover, failure to ensure the two-state peace deal materialising in the Middle East further dented the US role as an honest peace broker.

Notwithstanding such unpopular policies, the technological achievements of the United States — most notably the ubiquitous internet and email magic — continued to expand the basis for democracy and an inclusive culture of global citizenship. Moreover, the United States stunned the world by electing the first African-American president, and when he was re-elected for the second time it showed the resilience of American democracy and the great progress that society had made since the race riots of the 1960s.

However, egotism, greed and raw predatory attitudes prevalent in the financial world resulted in massive irresponsible transactions. Such reckless financial policies resulted in an economic crash in 2008 whose impact the experts are still debating, whether it was a depression or a recession or something else. That it ruined the savings of millions of workers and middle class people and generated mass unemployment greatly dented US prestige and dragged many industrial economies down as well.

Moreover, the world was awestruck when it watched on television the sophistry and apathy of Republicans hell-bent on opposing President Obama’s healthcare reform. I suppose American soft power received even an greater jolt as 2012 ended when 20 children, their six teachers and the killer’s mother were gunned down brutally by a madman. That bearing weapons is somehow an inalienable civil right that the US constitution provides to its citizens will never make sense to reasonable people. Thousands of innocent people die annually at the hands of trigger-happy killers, but the National Rifle Association and the weapons industry always manage to oppose any serious weapons control law that the federal government can adopt for the whole country. Moreover, for secular-minded Third World people, the American obsession with political religion has always been a disappointment. It has made people wonder if the secular-democratic state its constitution proclaims is a matter of convenience or principle.

With regard to South Asia, however, since the end of the Cold War US policy has been helpful in setting in motion processes that encourage archrivals India and Pakistan to seek peace and promote trade. During the Kargil mini-war, and again in 2001-2002, and then 2008, when both countries were on the verge of war, US diplomacy played a very important role in defusing tension and avoiding war that could have caused irreparable devastation and suffering.

These multifarious roles, some patently contradictory, that I have identified might suggest a descriptive approach, but the underlying assumption is that international politics is anarchic; even superpowers have a limited ability to determine the direction of politics, and whatever decisions are taken have consequences, some intended and some unintended.

As a superpower, which gained leadership of the world by advancing liberal internationalism backed by unprecedented economic, military and technological superiority, the US became the greatest power of the 20th century. Its existence has guaranteed that totalitarianism has been kept at bay. However, it was on the wrong side of history at many crucial junctures as well. The emerging challenge posed by China, the rise of Asia in general, the threat posed by political Islam and a resurgent Russia are challenges the US will have to face. It remains to be seen if it can meet them with a coherent moral approach based on justice and internationalism. One thing is certain: unbridled capitalism cannot be the material basis of true internationalism. Social democracy, on the other hand, holds out more promise, and while global citizenship may remain a goal beyond reach for a very long time, the future belongs to those who uphold justice and fair play for all.

(Concluded)

The writer is a PhD (Stockholm University); Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; and Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Latest publications: Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2013; The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First-Person Accounts (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2012; New Delhi: Rupa Books, 2011). He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com