People keep asking why we (the West with a big "W", or the United States and the Coalition of the Unwilling) invaded Iraq and then Afghanistan. People keep asking what possible interest we could have in what happens in Pakistan or Iran.
The answer may be found in a private briefing provided for the House Foreign Affairs Committee by the State and Defense Departments on March 9, 1983.
South and Southwest Asia is a region of critical strategic importance to the United States, presently threatened by Soviet expansionism. We are committed to the search for peace and stability within the region and to the safeguarding of the supply of oil critical to the U.S. and Western security.
Source: Passage to Peshawar by Richard Reeves, p. 196. Emphasis mine.
It's about the oil, stupid! In Walt's humble opinion, the U.S.A. has three options:
1) Decrease its consumption of oil and petroleum products. Some countries (Eire, Canada) have placed severe restrictions on the use of plastic bags for groceries. Will the US do so? Will we give up our love affair with SUVs and stretch Hummers that get about 2 mpg? Not likely.
2) Continue its struggle -- OK, let's call it the war that it is -- to control Afghanistan and the neighbouring countries. That means continuing to prop up the corrupt and incompetent governments of those countries. And it's a losing battle.
3) Find other, more secure sources of oil. China, which has similar problems and interests, isn't wasting lives and money in the Middle East. Instead they are buying up oilfields in Africa, Asia, even in Canada, as fast as they can. Yet American tree-huggers are telling Barry O'bama we should stop importing oil from Canada's tar sands because it's "dirty". As if Middle Eastern oil is clean! The only difference is the nature of the dirt.
Hello, Washington!!! Could we please have some truth-telling and common sense about oil? Please? Mid-term elections are coming. People are playing attention.
Showing posts with label Richard Reeves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Reeves. Show all posts
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Great American Unpopularity
"The Great American Unpopularity" is the title of a short essay written by Mubashir Hasan, a former finance minister of Pakistan. Here is an excerpt.
Think of an unpopular and corrupt administration in a Third World country, unabashedly violating human rights, and you find the United States patronizing it. Think of a government with a strong anti-American posture and you find the masses rallying behind it....
The great pity of it is that the people of American as individuals and in small groups are as fair and decent as they ever were. They are better educated and better able to articulate the higher values of humankind than their preceding generations.
During the last four decades they made perceptible progress in their country towards integration of black people, extending social security systems, securing extension of rights for women.... They have perhaps the freest press in the world...yet for a large part of the world the freedom of Americans in America spells misery and oppression and poverty.
In the first line quoted, Mr. Hasan was speaking of his own country. Pakistan has been a military dictatorship or an unelected quasi-civilian government for most of its history. Mr. Hasan wrote in 1982. 28 years later only the names and faces of the rulers have changed. That is one reason why the free countries of the world have been slow to offer flood relief.
Mr. Hasan's essay was quoted by Richard Reeves in "How We Pick Our Friends", Chapter 14 of Passage to Peshawar, 1984, New York, Simon and Schuster.
Think of an unpopular and corrupt administration in a Third World country, unabashedly violating human rights, and you find the United States patronizing it. Think of a government with a strong anti-American posture and you find the masses rallying behind it....
The great pity of it is that the people of American as individuals and in small groups are as fair and decent as they ever were. They are better educated and better able to articulate the higher values of humankind than their preceding generations.
During the last four decades they made perceptible progress in their country towards integration of black people, extending social security systems, securing extension of rights for women.... They have perhaps the freest press in the world...yet for a large part of the world the freedom of Americans in America spells misery and oppression and poverty.
In the first line quoted, Mr. Hasan was speaking of his own country. Pakistan has been a military dictatorship or an unelected quasi-civilian government for most of its history. Mr. Hasan wrote in 1982. 28 years later only the names and faces of the rulers have changed. That is one reason why the free countries of the world have been slow to offer flood relief.
Mr. Hasan's essay was quoted by Richard Reeves in "How We Pick Our Friends", Chapter 14 of Passage to Peshawar, 1984, New York, Simon and Schuster.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Pakistan: what is to be done?
A few days ago I suggested that the poor people of Haiti were not being much helped by the millions of dollars in disaster relief sent their way. I pointed to statistics from The Economist which show that large amounts of money and materiel have been either not used or, worse, wasted.
So, I said, perhaps the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people of ravaged and impoverished countries like Haiti pull themselves up by their bootstraps...or not. For that, I was predictably accused of being callous and insensitive, not to mention racist. "How can you just pass by on the other side of the road?", someone wrote.
OK, let's look at the latest disaster, the once-in-a-lifetime flooding in Pakistan, and reconsider.
Yes, there are hundreds of thousands who need shelter, food, water and medicine. The Globe and Mail quotes Mohammad Ali (not that one -- a bread maker) as saying, "The government...should provide clean water and clean food to the people.... Ramadan has arrived, but we see no sign of the government giving us any of these things."
What about the Red Cross then? Errrr...no. The Red Cross won't be allowed in because it's Christian, or at least not Islamic. The Muslim equivalent, the Red Crescent, is either unwilling or incapable of helping. (Muslims are notorious for being unable to unite in a common cause, whether military, political or humanitarian.)
Other charities and NGOs could help, but Pakistanis look to their repressive and authoritarian government, which says it doesn't have the resources. So we westerners say, we can send you tents, food, medicine, water purification systems -- all kinds of help. But nooooo... the Pakistani government is asking for money!
Ah yes, the elusive spondulix. Cold hard cash, the authorities say, is easier to get to Pakistan quickly. And we can use it, they say, to buy the things our poor people need so badly.
Walt says...wait a minute! If the tents, blankets and what-have-you are available locally, why does the government of Pakistan not just buy them? No money? Just requisition them, and pay later. Governments have the power and, arguably, the moral right to do that, for the relief of the afflicted.
But nooooo... the Pakistani government wants our dollars, and plenty of them. "Keep Pakistan green! Send American money!" There's a reason for that.
In 1984 Richard Reeves, an American journalist, wrote Passage to Peshawar, an investigation into the problems besetting Pakistan at that time.
One such was the vexed question of how to provide for the thousands of Afghan "refugees" flooding into Pakistan's Northwest province. Here is what he says about the humanitarian aid being given to Pakistan at that time.
"Corruption was pervasive in the refugee program.... It was basically a skimming operation. Army officers and officials were taking a cut of everything along the way. Food, clothing and drugs intended for refugees were in every bazaar, often being sold from the original WFP or UNHCR boxes.
"There was fatigued bitterness about that among foreign relief officials. But the Pakistanis were determined not to do things 'the Western way'. And the Westerners hadn't figured out a Pakistani way: a lot of them weren't sure there was a Pakistani way. Humanitarian work bred a certain cynicism."
Was it really a quarter of a century ago? Sounds just like yesterday...or today! The lesson is, send a blanket if you like, although even that may wind up on sale in the bazaar. Just don't send money!
So, I said, perhaps the best thing to do is nothing. Let the people of ravaged and impoverished countries like Haiti pull themselves up by their bootstraps...or not. For that, I was predictably accused of being callous and insensitive, not to mention racist. "How can you just pass by on the other side of the road?", someone wrote.
OK, let's look at the latest disaster, the once-in-a-lifetime flooding in Pakistan, and reconsider.
Yes, there are hundreds of thousands who need shelter, food, water and medicine. The Globe and Mail quotes Mohammad Ali (not that one -- a bread maker) as saying, "The government...should provide clean water and clean food to the people.... Ramadan has arrived, but we see no sign of the government giving us any of these things."
What about the Red Cross then? Errrr...no. The Red Cross won't be allowed in because it's Christian, or at least not Islamic. The Muslim equivalent, the Red Crescent, is either unwilling or incapable of helping. (Muslims are notorious for being unable to unite in a common cause, whether military, political or humanitarian.)
Other charities and NGOs could help, but Pakistanis look to their repressive and authoritarian government, which says it doesn't have the resources. So we westerners say, we can send you tents, food, medicine, water purification systems -- all kinds of help. But nooooo... the Pakistani government is asking for money!
Ah yes, the elusive spondulix. Cold hard cash, the authorities say, is easier to get to Pakistan quickly. And we can use it, they say, to buy the things our poor people need so badly.
Walt says...wait a minute! If the tents, blankets and what-have-you are available locally, why does the government of Pakistan not just buy them? No money? Just requisition them, and pay later. Governments have the power and, arguably, the moral right to do that, for the relief of the afflicted.
But nooooo... the Pakistani government wants our dollars, and plenty of them. "Keep Pakistan green! Send American money!" There's a reason for that.
In 1984 Richard Reeves, an American journalist, wrote Passage to Peshawar, an investigation into the problems besetting Pakistan at that time.
One such was the vexed question of how to provide for the thousands of Afghan "refugees" flooding into Pakistan's Northwest province. Here is what he says about the humanitarian aid being given to Pakistan at that time.
"Corruption was pervasive in the refugee program.... It was basically a skimming operation. Army officers and officials were taking a cut of everything along the way. Food, clothing and drugs intended for refugees were in every bazaar, often being sold from the original WFP or UNHCR boxes.
"There was fatigued bitterness about that among foreign relief officials. But the Pakistanis were determined not to do things 'the Western way'. And the Westerners hadn't figured out a Pakistani way: a lot of them weren't sure there was a Pakistani way. Humanitarian work bred a certain cynicism."
Was it really a quarter of a century ago? Sounds just like yesterday...or today! The lesson is, send a blanket if you like, although even that may wind up on sale in the bazaar. Just don't send money!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)