Home About Us Contact
 
Change Text Size: A A
ÿþWhy America is unpopular?

Mohammad Jamil


The US envoy to Pakistan Cameron Munter, while addressing at the Harvard-Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in Boston, has said that “the military-to-military cooperation with Pakistan has taken a nosedive during the last year or so. However, the cooperation between Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is still sustained, but could be affected after ISI Chief, General Pasha’s retirement in March this year”. This appears to be a ruse and effort to defame Lt. General Pasha by implying that he is America’s man, and also to create a wedge between military and the ISI by stating cooperation between the ISI and CIA is sustained. While talking to the reporters he admitted: “America is unpopular in Pakistan, with a public favorability rating of roughly 6 to 10 percent”. In fact, America is not only unpopular in most developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, but also hated by the people of those countries.


America has indeed traditions of freedom, democracy, human rights and human values dating back to American founding fathers. It is, however, unfortunate that barring a few honourable exceptions, their successors through their actions negated the principles upheld by them. In the past, the US had resorted to unilateral use of force ostensibly to promote democracy in Haiti, Nicaragua and in Latin America. It had intervened forcibly to change regimes, restore order and preach democracy. However, on becoming President in 1933, Franklin D Roosevelt abandoned the policy pursued by his predecessor President Woodrow Wilson. He treated his neighbours with respect, acknowledged past American blunders, and saw that constitutions alone did not guarantee a democratic outcome. At the time of his election President Barack Obama had made the people of the world to believe that he will not be as ruthless as his predecessor but he seems to be treading the same beaten track.


Various US administrations had hatched conspiracies against popular leaders of other countries, and US leadership was responsible for assassination of Lumumba and removal of President Soekarno. Arguably, the US had played its role in stoking Iran-Iraq war and Arab-Israel conflict, and had supported the contra saboteurs against the revolutionary government of Nicaragua. The list of its interferences, subversions, controls and overthrowing of Third World governments was too long to be elaborated. Most American leaders have never hidden their motives that they want to dominate the world and control its resources. Equally important is their objective to strengthen Israel and to make it more powerful than all the Arab countries put together. Against the hopes of the Arabs, President Obama has also failed to counter Jewish influence on American policies. He has to realize that one of the fundamental reasons that people throughout the world hate America is because of the US’ unqualified support to Israel. Anyhow, Obama has to prove that he can bolster confidence of the shaken world


America’s ruses had started after 100 years of its independence. On April 25, 1898 the United States had declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire - Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines Islands, Guam, and other islands. The Treaty of Berlin was signed on 14 November 1899 between the United States, Germany, and the Britain. Before the treaty was signed, the British, Germans, and Americans wanted to exclusively trade with Samoa. However, based on the treaty, Samoa was divided between Germany and the United States - Western Samoa went to Germany, while Eastern Samoa to the United States. Colonizers had been colonizing and subjugating other nations, and justified it on the grounds that they brought African and Asian peoples the benefits of civilization.


But there appears to be no substance in the claim that any country establishes imperialistic rule over the other countries to spread the benefit of civilization to countries ruled. They did it just to benefit their own economic interest and to increase their military strength and security. One glaring example of the imperialistic greed is the opium war between the British and China whereby the British actually corrupted and weakened the Chinese Society and civilization by making them addict to opium. They had fought the Opium war to secure rights to sell opium to Chinese people. Whereas the exploiters found new methods of exploitation, the exploited also learned new techniques to resist the occupiers and exploiters. French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet believed that human nature could be perfected and the history showed humanity’s progress towards an enlightened civilization. As the imperialism continued to find ways and means to subjugate and exploit the people of the Third World countries, the exploited also invented novel methods to resist.


Europeans had through the centuries ruthlessly exploited the world and were able to enhance the living standards of their people. First of all, British, Portuguese, Spanish etc., had gone to America and made the entire continent their colony. They had fought one another over the booty in American continent. In Europe also, there were wars between the European countries ranging from scores of years to decades, and at least one 100-year war between the England and France. In twentieth century, two world wars had weakened European countries and their economies were crippled, with the result that they could not control their colonies. America however filled the void by giving credit to the shattered economies of the West, and controlling former colonies through neo-colonialism. Today, America has more than 1000 military bases in America and 70 other odd countries of the world, and as such America is a neighbour to all the countries of the world.


During the Cold War era, America and former Soviet Union remained at loggerheads. But after the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan in late 1980s and disintegrated, the US became the sole super power. The philosophers like Francis Fukuyama wrote ‘The end of history’, that democratic liberalism has won and there would be no more challenges to capitalism. But the recent protests that started with Occupy Wall Street movement in the US and extended to other countries portend gloom and doom. According to protestors, they were against the corporate greed. The protest in last October was just one of several throughout the United States and across the world inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement. In Rome, police fired tear gas and water cannons when a group from hundreds of protesters taking to the streets began smashing windows and lighting fires. In the US, people demand jobs, fair taxes and corporate oversight to reshape the political landscape. They are angry that some banks and corporations have been given bailout packages, which is tantamount to subsidizing the rich at the cost of the common people.


 
Arresting the Key Suspect

Yousaf Alamgirian


India always involves Pakistan in every incident happening inside herterritory. All of the Indian governments have been lucky in thisregard that they can easily hide themselves behind the blames imposedon Pakistan in order to cover its failures to counter such acts. Be itSamjhota Express blast or any other incident India with in no timefinds its connections with Pakistan and that too without havingreached to the facts. India is very fond of blame games.


Keeping inview Samjhota express type incidents it seems India is expert enoughin staging dramas to defame Pakistan. India once staged a plan hijackdrama but retreated when exposed after failure in handling the sameand later on declared that as a rehearsal.Indian blame game once again has been exposed after the arrest of keysuspect Kamal Chohan from Indore. He was the one who placed theexplosive laden briefcase inside the train. Involvement of an IndianArmy Lieutenant Colonel PS Purohit has already been established inSamjhota express blast killing more than 60 innocent passengers mostlyPakistanis.


PS Purohit procured the explosives used in the 2007Samjhota Express train bombing and 2008 Malegaon blast, Indian policetold a court in Nashik city. According to Maharashtra police Colonelhad obtained 60 kilogrammes of the explosive from Jammu and Kashmir in2006 according to a witness in the Malegaon blast case.Meanwhile, Hindu ascetic Sadhvi Pragya Singh and Lt Col Purohit testednegative in narco tests on direct involvement in the Samjhota Expressbombing, but gave important clues about their clandestine network. TheMumbai Police ATS is now tracing two followers of Sadhvi and anIndore-based Hindu Jagran Manch that they believe are the ‘missinglink’ in the Samjhota Express bombing. The suitcases that were used toblow up three carriages of Samjhota Express were traced to Indore,which has emerged as a hub of clandestine activities of Hindu militantgroups.Indian government and its army both are very loving of making fakedramas and fake encounters and fortunately or unfortunately villain ofevery drama is Pakistan. So, Indian army is not behind than any ofother Indian agency to plant such dramas. According to The IndianExpress few months back Indian held Kashmir Police have arrested twopersons in connection with the “fake encounter” at Larnoo Bandipore.


It is said that a trooper of 3 Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantryregiment (JAKLI), Tahir Pathan, and an Army source, Riyaz AhmadChichi, have been arrested on charges of killing labourer MohammadAshraf Sheikh for monetary gains and later dubbing him as a militant.Ashraf Sheikh disappeared from Srinagar where he had been working as alabourer.


Soon after, the Budgam police arrested Chichi on charges ofabducting the daughter of a soldier. Chichi along with the girl wastraced to S D Colony, Batamaloo in Srinagar. Later, police recovered acard from Chichi, which identified him as an Army source in Bandipore.The Budgam police found out that their Bandipore counterparts were onthe lookout for Chichi as they had information that he was seen withSheikh before the “encounter”. Chichi claimed he had hired Sheikh fromSrinagar for Rs 200 a day, taken him to Bandipore where Armymen stagedan “encounter”, and placed a gun near his body to pass him off as amilitant. They said Chichi claimed a Major had promised to “capture amilitant for the unit” in exchange for Rs 1 lakh.Mean while an Indian Army Colonel H.S. Kohli, has been dismissed and amajor suspended for faking killings by splashing tomato ketchup oncivilians and passing them off as dead separatists - in the hope ofbeing awarded. Colonel H.S.


Kohli, commanding an artillery regiment inAssam, had faked the killing of some separatists last year by makingsome civilians pose in photographs as enemy casualties after splashingtheir bodies with tomato sauce.The “daring” colonel in fact tried to use the photographs to back hisclaim for a gallantry award and was subsequently tried and foundguilty in a court martial.


The colonel apparently took photographs ofsome civilians in an isolated place in southern Assam’s Cachardistrict after pouring tomato sauce on their bodies and making thepictures look like an encounter, with blood splattered over thebodies. The fraud came to light when the colonel’s claims for agallantry award were processed.


It was indeed bizarre to find himclaiming a bravery award for the kills, which in fact did not, tookplace at all. The saucy scandal was not unique of its kind to rock theIndian Army as they had already proved their skills in Siachen scandalin which a major was accused of inventing enemy killings for the sakeof gallantry awards.


According to new norms, Indian Army officials arebeing graded and awarded promotions and bravery awards on the basis ofthe number of terrorists they capture and kill.In order to pressurize Pakistan India always tries to be over smartand keep blaming Pakistan for terrorist activities. It should at leastapologize for putting the blame of Samjhota express and defaming itsagencies for backing the terrorists and must realize that certainattitude will not help peace to occur in the region.


 
The world according to America

Humayun Gauhar


It was not just semantics last week when I America ‘rules’ rather than ‘runs’ Pakistan. The pun was intended: when America frowns we get the runs; when it smiles our evacuations become normal.


America has a very big say in what it considers important, including job appointments from top to lowly ambassadors, intelligence chiefs and restoration of sacked judges. It determines our foreign, defence and economic policies and their managers. We even take directions from US envoys and ambassadors. Disregard America’s will and suffer sanctions to trashing of governments. Don’t believe me? See how Hussain Haqqani was flown out of the coop? Didn’t he meet a US embassy official before leaving? Weren’t it Holbrooke and Clinton who pressured the army chief into getting the judges restored? Did you read Matthew Green’s article in the Financial Times last Thursday entitled: ‘US Monitors Pakistan’s Choice of Spymaster’? If you are as appalled as I am it’s a healthy sign, for to duck the truth means your conscience and self-esteem have died. Tu jhuka jo ghair kay agay, na mun taira na tun.


Our servile position arises primarily from our financial dependence on America. Our attraction to America is in direct correlation to the size of its wallet – like Kunta Kinte just enough to keep us going – just as a person’s eligibility is in direct correlation to the size of their wallets and the marriage’s continuing health to its shrinking or expansion. Happiness lies in perpetually getting America’s handouts, taking more to make usury payments, perpetually increasing our indebtedness and dependence. God remains stranded in rhetoric, the Devil breaks out in a dance and the people take the hindmost.


Can America change our government? Of course it can if it stops serving its purpose. ‘Rogue’ leaders are thrown out after a ‘popular’ uprising or killed. Look what happened to Chile’s Salvador Allende. How many times have they tried to kill Fidel Castro? Look what’s happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and before that to Iraq and Saddam. Sure their rulers were odious tyrants, but that’s none of America’s business. Should we have thrown George W. Bush and his company of mass murderers out to stop their killings and stupidity-driven global economic destruction? America puts most tyrants in place anyhow and throws them out when they become liabilities, whenever possible making it look as they are supporting popular sentiment. When necessary, America also teaches current and future satraps a lesson – Bhutto hanged; Zia killed in a plane crash; Saddam hanged; Gaddafi horribly killed; Mubarak displayed in a cage lying on a stretcher. Doesn’t that cage look incongruous without Bush & Company in it too for crimes against humanity? If NATO warplanes had not bombed and stalled Gaddafi’s convoy he would never have been captured and brutally assassinated by America’s crazed mob. It was no mistake.


Wishful thinking aside, don’t be fooled into believing that America has ‘lost’ because ‘Islamic’ governments are taking power in Arab countries. They are America’s ‘Islamic’ governments, products of its new doctrine: “If you can’t lick ’em, join ‘em” by putting friendly mullahs in place before unfriendly ones get in. This is not unlike America’s earlier doctrine regarding dictators: “We know he’s a son-of-a-bitch but he’s our son-of-a-bitch”. Now its changed to: “We know he’s a wretched mullah but he’s our wretched mullah.” Lump it. Were that life were still so simple. The somnambulant masses are awakening; the workers of the world are uniting and breaking their chains; the ‘wretched of the earth’ are realizing that their wretchedness is not a fate ordained but stolen by man.


If I’m being simplistic it is to help explain the contours of reality. Isn’t America being overly simplistic too, imagining that if it can endlessly go on recasting the world in the image that it thinks will work for it regardless if it doesn’t work for others, all will be well with ‘The World According to America’? This thinking has defaced America’s original ideology rooted in the motto, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that initially defined it as a great country. It is a motto at once secular and spiritual. Today, that ideology is rooted in hypocrisy and duality: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for America but not necessarily for others. If in their pursuit these ideals are denied to the rest of the world, so be it. The world’s purpose of existence is to enable America to achieve life, liberty and happiness.


To America it means that happiness (which implies life and liberty, without which there can be no happiness) can only be achieved by the pursuit and maximization of profit. This has led to the worst kind of capitalism, neither moral nor immoral but amoral. America that started out with great promise as an icon of freedom began worshiping wealth and the power that derives from it. Money and wealth-creation, once a powerful driving force and something to celebrate, became America’s Golden Calf. That initial morality of shiny eyed, bushy tailed early immigrants was replaced with wealth creation any old how not just at the expense of the world but also at the expense of its own country and people.


Ah! ‘Liberty’. The word gives one goose pimples. It was used in an earlier ideology of freedom from which America’s founding fathers probably took it. That ideology was encapsulated in the motto, Liberté, égalité, fraternité – ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’. Though it finds its origins in the French Revolution, it became the national motto of France after the establishment of the Third Republic at the end of the 19th century. Its authorship is disputed, but Antoine-Francois Momoro, a Parisian printer and herbalist is usually credited with it.


While fraternity means ‘brotherhood’, ‘egalite’ has been translated as ‘equality’, but it is more than that. More accurately, it is ‘egalitarianism’, meaning everyone is equal before the law no matter who they are or what office they hold. Egalitarianism is – or was – one of America’s ideological cornerstones but it lost it at home with first the passing of the Patriot Act and now the National Defence Authorization Act that gives the US military the right to arrest any US citizen indefinitely without charge or trial. Its become a police state. There never was any egalitarianism between states in the pursuit of self-interest, because “there is no morality in relations between states”.


The word ‘liberal’ comes from the word ‘liberty’ or ‘liberation’ – one who is liberated physically, nationally, and most vital, mentally. Give people the space to say and do what they want to so long as they don’t harm others. Many of our liberals lose their liberalism the moment another expresses a contrary point of view – “Humayun Gauhar and people of his ilk should be lined up against a wall and the Stalinist option used” was what one of our more celebrated liberals wrote more than 20 years ago when I first suggested that the presidential system would suit us better. Today, more and more people are talking about it. Had we all been shot no one would have dared utter a word about it again.


Whose fault is it that we are underlings? Not our stars, surely, for our destiny lies not in them but within us. We are to blame. The buck stops with us. We have to get out of mental colonization ourselves. No one will do it for us. Going by the summit between the presidents of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, perhaps our consciences are still not completely dead. I just hope it was not just posturing. You never know given that two of the three leaders are US satraps.—OM


 
Who will be France’s next president?

Imane M. Kurdi


THE FRENCH people go to the polls in two months, first on the April 22 to whittle down their presidential candidates to two, and then for the presidential run off on May 6.


Last Wednesday President Sarkozy officially declared himself a candidate for his re-election. His main opponent is Francois Hollande, the Socialist party candidate. And then there are a dozen or so other candidates, some of whom will not even make it to the first round. Just in the last week two more have pulled out, Herve Morin and Christine Boutin.


Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, is also a question mark. Unlike Morin and Boutin who between them could not garner more than one percent of voting intentions, Le Pen has millions of French citizens saying they intend to vote for her. Opinion polls consistently give her over 15 percent, and occasionally even close on to 20 percent, but she has yet to collect the 500 signatures necessary to get her name on the ballot.


Any candidate has to obtain the endorsement of at least 500 elected officials in order to run, there are more than 47,000 officials and yet Le Pen is struggling to find 500 willing to sign for her. Why? Because her views and policies are xenophobic and politically incorrect, they offend the mainstream enough to stop elected officials from wanting to be associated with her, but not enough to stop a sizeable minority of the French populace from voting for her.


However, it is a safe bet that Le Pen will find her signatures and get her name on the ballot, the main parties will give her a helping hand if need be, the political fall-out from her exclusion would be far too damaging. Besides what would it say about French democracy if a candidate that has the support of almost a fifth of the voting public could not be eligible to stand for election? The French will have quite a colorful cast of characters to choose from. For the Greens there is Eva Joly, a Norwegian-born magistrate, surprise winner of the nomination for the Greens and who regularly strays from her party’s official line. On the far left, the Communist Party is not fielding a candidate, instead there is a candidate for the ‘Left Front’, Jean-Luc Mélenchon — outspoken, angry, anti-establishment — who is doing well, scoring 9 percent in the latest opinion polls. Dominique de Villepin, the former prime minister who once charmed us all with his impassioned speech at the UN in 2003, is also a candidate, more to spite Sarkozy than anything else one suspects, but he is trailing far behind, barely 2 percent in the opinion polls. That leaves the center ground open to Francois Bayrou, leader of the centrist party MoDem. Bayrou’s candidacy and indeed his popularity — opinion polls give 12-15 percent of voting intentions — highlights an interesting aspect of French presidential elections.


They are more about the individual than the political party. MoDem, the party founded by Francois Bayrou, only has a handful of seats in the National Assembly, and only a couple more in the Senate, and yet Bayrou is a force to be reckoned with in presidential elections. He may not be a runner to win it, but he could be kingmaker.


Unless something drastic happens — and the campaign is only just kicking off — it looks like a two-horse race with Hollande way ahead out of the starting blocks in front of Sarkozy. Opinion polls give Hollande between 28-34 percent and Sarkozy 23-26 percent in the first round and predict a massive defeat for Sarkozy in the second round, with the gap between them consistently over 10 percent and often as high as 15 percent.


The man currently tipped to become France’s next president describes himself as “Mr. Normal.” Hollande is an unlikely contender. You may remember him as the leader of the Socialist political party at the last presidential elections in 2007, when Segolene Royal, the mother of his children, was his party’s candidate. The couple were estranged and split shortly after the elections and Hollande resigned from his post as party leader. Since then he has relaunched himself. Sharing his life with a new partner, dramatic weight-loss and a new sense of self-confidence propelled him to declare himself a candidate back when Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s candidacy was assumed to be a foregone conclusion.


With Strauss-Kahn out of the running, he suddenly became a serious contender. And yet when he beat Martine Aubry last October to obtain the Socialist Party’s nomination many were dubious as to how someone so unassuming could assume the mantle of president. Since then he has made a concerted effort to appear presidential, to emulate the manner of Francois Mitterand, the last socialist the French elected as president. Who will the French choose? Perhaps the duel can be summed up by the two campaign slogans. Hollande has chosen ‘Change is now’ whilst Sarkozy has gone for ‘La France Forte’, a strong France, a slogan promptly parodied for sounding like the name of a German sausage, and for the fact that the tranquil sea seen behind Sarkozy in the campaign poster is of the Aegean.


On the one side you have a president who is seen as a friend of the rich and a close ally of Angela Merkel and on the other a man who has declared that his enemy is the world of finance. I don’t know who I would vote for were I a French citizen, but as a Muslim I sincerely hope that whoever the French people decide to make their next president, it will see the end to the kind of government where a minister of the interior can declare that “Not all civilizations are of the same value. Those which defend liberty, equality and fraternity, seem to us superior to those who accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred’ as Claude Gueant recently did. When a government official of an enlightened country like France starts to speak of superior civilizations, something is very wrong indeed.—AN


 
Photo Gallery »
  Comments
..
Name Email
Title
Comment
 
     
  More inside The Daily Mail
Top Headlines Business Sports Showbiz
 
Copyright © 2002-2011 The Daily Mail. All rights reserved
Powered by The Daily Mail Creative Team