Lamentations
Right now, most of my attention is focused on the election campaigns for the 2008 election, and I get the distinct impression from all of my friends (not just those in the blog universe) that they share my obsession. What I really hadn't quite realized is that the rest of the world is obsessing right along with us, although with slightly different motives.
I was particularly struck by this op-ed piece in Pakistan's Daily Nawaiwaqt (which I accessed via Watching America). Now, the translation isn't up to Watching America's usual standards, but to my mind the grammatical lapses do not in any way deter from the passion of the original. In fact, they might have even added to it.
The British newspaper The Financial Times forecasts that if Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections, it will be difficult for General (retired) Musharraf to hold on to power. It is understandable because military dictatorship in Pakistan always faces problems whenever a candidate from the Democrat Party wins a U.S. Presidential Election. The U.S. presidents from the Republican Party have more openly supported Pakistan’s military dictators. Yet the role of Democratic presidents is neither very transparent nor clear. But it can be said without any fear of refute that Republican presidents have fully supported the military dictators.
The author then proceeds to list the stances of the presidents in the latter half of the 20th Century into the 21st Century, and his history is pretty accurate. Republicans have in fact not just tolerated, but embraced the dictators of this Asian country. Still, the Carters and the Clintons have not exactly shone forth either. While they might have refused to shake hands with the dictator du jour, they certainly didn't do anything which might have destabilized their rule.
And therein lies the source of the profound lament issued by Ata Ur Rehman, the author of the piece:
...we as Pakistanis, are more concerned with why the coming and going of our governments has been attached linked to the U.S.. Why should we look at the U.S. to see which party’s president makes his way into the White House, and therefore, whether the outlook for a civilian democratic government is bright in Pakistan or another military dictatorship is our fate? This situation is a constant insult to our nation.
For this reason, our sovereignty, which is the most precious asset of a nation, has turned to shambles. Our internal politics is not subject to any constitution, principle or regulation. The military dictators get a free hand to destroy public representation and all norms of civilization and decency because they are protecting the interests of the U.S., rather than their own country. When they are in need, the rulers in Washington leave no stone unturned to be served as they expect, but soon everything is forgotten. However, as a result, Pakistan is in ruins. Our unity is in disarray. We have no dignity in the world. ...
...it is mandatory that we decide to uphold the constitution and return to democracy, rather than pinning our hopes on Hillary Clinton and her becoming president of the U.S. to help us get rid of dictatorship. It should be clear that the U.S. will hold its naked interests supreme in every circumstance. In Pakistan, general elections are imminent. They may be held on January 8th or could be delayed for a few weeks. In every situation, it is the duty of Pakistani people to decide their future and fate at the ballot box. We should engage our minds and open our eyes so that results of 2008 are not like those of the elections of 2002 which invigorated Musharraf’s dictatorship. This time, the result of the election should be good news for democracy in Pakistan. If not, the whole election process will be futile. Our eyes will be set on Washington and we will be as docile as ever. It is time that we get rid of this national menace for good.
And that is what our foreign policy has been: we have determined the fate of those living oceans away to satisfy our own needs, the morality of our actions never once examined. It is most acute at this time in history only because a would-be leader (one that our current administration decided could be helpful) was murdered and the press decided it was worth a look.
Is this post a plump for a particular candidate for president? Hell, no. It's not even a plump for the Democrats, although I certainly could make an argument for such a spiel. What is is, instead, is a plea for all of the candidates, in fact for all the country, to realize just what we have done in the past and what the results have been, and to change course. 9/11 was no accident, but the explanation for it is no where near where those who have led for the past seven years claims it is. Did we deserve it? No one deserves such retribution, and that is the whole point. Bombing other nations into oblivion is not the answer to such a crime, yet that has been the American foreign policy.
The Iraq War is just the most obvious example of a foreign policy that places American shallow interests ahead of everything else. We need now, as never before, a foreign policy with a moral backbone to it, one that recognizes that this nation is a superpower, but not one that demands that its insatiable desires be met before all else.
We need leaders who are willing to work with other nations, our traditional allies and those who have been enemies in the past, to ensure that all the people of the earth have a fair shot at growing up and growing into their roles as citizens. We need to work with international organizations, whether the United Nations or regional organizations such as the EU, SEATO, and NATO, and the Arab League to confront recalcitrant dictators with economic and military sanctions that would cripple their attempts to strangle their own people. But we need to do so in concert, not with the cowboy diplomacy of the last seven years.
Somehow, we need to get this message to those who would be president.
I was particularly struck by this op-ed piece in Pakistan's Daily Nawaiwaqt (which I accessed via Watching America). Now, the translation isn't up to Watching America's usual standards, but to my mind the grammatical lapses do not in any way deter from the passion of the original. In fact, they might have even added to it.
The British newspaper The Financial Times forecasts that if Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections, it will be difficult for General (retired) Musharraf to hold on to power. It is understandable because military dictatorship in Pakistan always faces problems whenever a candidate from the Democrat Party wins a U.S. Presidential Election. The U.S. presidents from the Republican Party have more openly supported Pakistan’s military dictators. Yet the role of Democratic presidents is neither very transparent nor clear. But it can be said without any fear of refute that Republican presidents have fully supported the military dictators.
The author then proceeds to list the stances of the presidents in the latter half of the 20th Century into the 21st Century, and his history is pretty accurate. Republicans have in fact not just tolerated, but embraced the dictators of this Asian country. Still, the Carters and the Clintons have not exactly shone forth either. While they might have refused to shake hands with the dictator du jour, they certainly didn't do anything which might have destabilized their rule.
And therein lies the source of the profound lament issued by Ata Ur Rehman, the author of the piece:
...we as Pakistanis, are more concerned with why the coming and going of our governments has been attached linked to the U.S.. Why should we look at the U.S. to see which party’s president makes his way into the White House, and therefore, whether the outlook for a civilian democratic government is bright in Pakistan or another military dictatorship is our fate? This situation is a constant insult to our nation.
For this reason, our sovereignty, which is the most precious asset of a nation, has turned to shambles. Our internal politics is not subject to any constitution, principle or regulation. The military dictators get a free hand to destroy public representation and all norms of civilization and decency because they are protecting the interests of the U.S., rather than their own country. When they are in need, the rulers in Washington leave no stone unturned to be served as they expect, but soon everything is forgotten. However, as a result, Pakistan is in ruins. Our unity is in disarray. We have no dignity in the world. ...
...it is mandatory that we decide to uphold the constitution and return to democracy, rather than pinning our hopes on Hillary Clinton and her becoming president of the U.S. to help us get rid of dictatorship. It should be clear that the U.S. will hold its naked interests supreme in every circumstance. In Pakistan, general elections are imminent. They may be held on January 8th or could be delayed for a few weeks. In every situation, it is the duty of Pakistani people to decide their future and fate at the ballot box. We should engage our minds and open our eyes so that results of 2008 are not like those of the elections of 2002 which invigorated Musharraf’s dictatorship. This time, the result of the election should be good news for democracy in Pakistan. If not, the whole election process will be futile. Our eyes will be set on Washington and we will be as docile as ever. It is time that we get rid of this national menace for good.
And that is what our foreign policy has been: we have determined the fate of those living oceans away to satisfy our own needs, the morality of our actions never once examined. It is most acute at this time in history only because a would-be leader (one that our current administration decided could be helpful) was murdered and the press decided it was worth a look.
Is this post a plump for a particular candidate for president? Hell, no. It's not even a plump for the Democrats, although I certainly could make an argument for such a spiel. What is is, instead, is a plea for all of the candidates, in fact for all the country, to realize just what we have done in the past and what the results have been, and to change course. 9/11 was no accident, but the explanation for it is no where near where those who have led for the past seven years claims it is. Did we deserve it? No one deserves such retribution, and that is the whole point. Bombing other nations into oblivion is not the answer to such a crime, yet that has been the American foreign policy.
The Iraq War is just the most obvious example of a foreign policy that places American shallow interests ahead of everything else. We need now, as never before, a foreign policy with a moral backbone to it, one that recognizes that this nation is a superpower, but not one that demands that its insatiable desires be met before all else.
We need leaders who are willing to work with other nations, our traditional allies and those who have been enemies in the past, to ensure that all the people of the earth have a fair shot at growing up and growing into their roles as citizens. We need to work with international organizations, whether the United Nations or regional organizations such as the EU, SEATO, and NATO, and the Arab League to confront recalcitrant dictators with economic and military sanctions that would cripple their attempts to strangle their own people. But we need to do so in concert, not with the cowboy diplomacy of the last seven years.
Somehow, we need to get this message to those who would be president.
Labels: Election 2008, Foreign Policy
posted by Diane at 1:15 PM
1 Comments:
It's easy for me to think big while I'm sharing the table with one of the cats and my computer, but if the people of the United States really want to provide moral leadership for the world here's an idea:
Don't *just* withdraw armed forces from the Middle East. Begin nuclear build-down.
Everybody on the planet would be better off trading butter than guns.
By the way, rarely (like never) is a numb/tingly small finger an indicator of Carpal Tunnel, so it's probably something else that's giving it that feeling.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/carpal-tunnel-syndrome/DS00326/DSECTION=2
Post a Comment
<< Home