Pakistani neo-liberals and the US

[Neo]

Pakistani neo-liberals and the US

ARTICLE (June 17 2010): How passionate is our neo-liberal elite about seeing an everlasting yet skewed relationship with the US regardless of its implications for this country's well-being was on display the other day at a lecture-slide show an American diplomat gave at the South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA).

The focus of the programme was some infrastructure development projects the diplomat was associated with during an earlier stint in Afghanistan's Bamian province. For obvious reasons, the ensuing Q&A session focused more on the overarching security issues than the development programme.

One member of the audience raised a valid question, asking the visitor if after the recent deadly attack on the Nato supplies near Islamabad, the US was giving a serious thought to using the alternative northern route. The answer, of course, was that alternatives are always under consideration, but there are no plans at the moment to reroute the supplies.

Some neo-liberals among the audience had other worries. One person seemed quite perturbed over the damage the attack on Nato trucks might have caused, and wanted to know the precise extent of the losses. Was it ten percent or twenty percent? The diplomat wouldn't know; even if she knew she wouldn't tell a Pakistani audience. Militaries never admit the true extent of their losses in times of war. The person in question, respected for being a well-read journalist, should be aware of such basic issues, but his distress over American losses got the better of him.

Then a young journalist from the 'liberal' tribe pointed to a recent LSE research study report that accused Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, of providing funding, training and sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban; to anxiously pose the question what would happen if the US left Afghanistan too soon?

This betrays a certain level of naiveté, and also goes beyond international neo-liberal thought that favours, at least on theoretical level, mutually beneficial cooperation. But the underlying concern is shared by many others. As for the LSE report, it makes no sense given the fact that our military has suffered far greater casualties than the US and all its ISAF allies put together. As of February of the current year, 30,452 people were killed or injured as a result of the Afghan conflict's spillover effect.

These included 21,672 civilians and 8,785 military men, whereas the combined US and Nato casualties in Afghanistan numbered just 1,582. And we continue to count our dead. In case, the ISI was 'orchestrating', 'sustaining' and 'strongly influencing the Taliban', as the LSE report alleges, the Taliban would not be targeting Pakistan Army officers and men as well as citizens.

The apparent purpose of the release of the LSE research report at this point in time is to put pressure on the Pakistan Army to launch an operation in North Waziristan where disparate groups of local and Afghan Taliban are reported to have taken refuge.

There is no question about that the place needs to be cleared of the elements, who have been massacring people in suicide bombings all over Pakistan. But those familiar with the situation say North Waziristan is a hornet's nest; touching it can have disastrous consequences for this country. Therefore, good sense suggests the Army should go in if and when it thinks it appropriate, not on the say-so of outsiders who have nothing to fear or lose in case things go wrong.

So what kind of mindset is it that looks towards the US as a saviour despite the colossal death and destruction it has caused in Iraq and Afghanistan and, as blowback from Afghanistan, in Pakistan as well? There are two categories of people who support the US campaign and want an open-ended American stay in the region. One comprises those who are genuinely scared of the spread of Afghan Taliban style extremism, and have also bought into the Western propaganda that tells us everyone opposed to the US presence in Afghanistan is a supporter of the establishment of a world Salafi Caliphate for which Pakistan is to serve as the launch pad.

These people are not to blame if they wish complete decimation of the Taliban's retrogressive radicalism - a sentiment shared by all sane people. Nonetheless, the solution is not to replace one kind of oppression with another. The interests of the Empire and countries like Pakistan do not, cannot, be the same, though they might coincide in certain situations. We must, therefore, devise our own strategies to defeat extremism and the terrorism it breeds.

The second category of our liberal elite are people the kind of which always act as collaborators for invaders and occupiers. They will bow before superior power as long as it serves their individual interests. It is best to ignore them. Still, it is unfortunate that our brand of neo-liberalism is about outright subservience to Western interests as opposed to cooperation based on mutual interest. Also, there is a shocking lack of humanity and a sense of right and wrong.

For instance, it does not bother our neo-liberals that an overwhelming majority of the victims of Predator drone strikes are innocent civilians, who happen to live in the wrong place. In fact, they want these attacks to continue. If the US were to decide to direct drone attacks in upscale neighbourhoods of Islamabad, Lahore or Karachi, where these people live, killing their children, siblings or parents, they would be seething with rage, as do those living in Fata, in the revenge mode.

For now, those who worry about an early American departure from the region need to take it easy. President Obama's announcement of troop drawdown beginning next summer was nothing more than a political ruse to satisfy public opinion at home. The US has no intention of leaving 'Af-Pak' in the foreseeable future. This is plain from the huge expansion that is under way in its Islamabad embassy. Aside from certain strategic attractions in the region, the US has new economic interests to pursue that will keep it in Afghanistan for the long haul.

This past Monday, Washington announced the news of discovery of mineral deposits worth $1 trillion in Afghanistan. State Department spokesman P.J Crowley said at a briefing in Washington, "it is a potentially important development... that offers the ability for Afghanistan to have the resources necessary to develop a modern economy, a legal economy, as opposed to the economy they currently have." These deposits include iron, copper, and gold.

Even more importantly, there is niobium, a metal used in superconducting steel production, and lithium which is a raw material that goes into the making of batteries for laptops, cell phones, and new technologies being developed for 'green cars'. Lithium reserves are so big that the US media says they could turn Afghanistan into "Saudi Arabia of lithium."

It is not a sudden find. According to press reports, the US Geological Survey had begun aerial survey of Afghanistan in 2006, using data collected by Soviets in the 1980s. The results were promising enough for the US to bring in its own mining experts to validate the survey's findings, and then announce it is working with the Afghan government to explore nearly $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan, which shows much of the spadework has already been done. That would be the great news for our neo-liberals; but for the rest of us, it means a lot more trouble in the years to come.

Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]