This is a transcript of an Amy Goodman interview with Imran Khan, former Pakistani cricket star turned political activist. Khan gives some interesting insight into the current situation in Pakistan, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharaff. It would be worth your while to read the whole transcript, but the part where Khan highlights the problem of U.S.-backed dictators is of particular interest:
"And the problem with the U.S. is that, unfortunately, it always ends up backing military dictators or dictators at the expense of the people and unnecessarily alienates the people. I mean, when I spoke to the lawmakers, I asked them a simple question. I said, look, why would people in Pakistan—if you have a democratic government in Pakistan and back a democratic government which comes through free and fair elections, well, you do not pick horses. I mean, the U.S. backed Benazir Bhutto. I thought that was absolutely wrong. They should not interfere in the domestic politics, because if they back one party, then everyone else goes against the U.S. So if a government comes through free and fair elections, why would it not want to work with the U.S.? It’s bizarre. I don’t understand this. Why would a democratic elected government in Pakistan not want to work with the only superpower in the world? I mean, after all, we have to—if I’m a Democrat, I have to go to the people to get their vote, and if I don’t bring them prosperity, they’re not going to vote for me. And if I pick a fight with the only superpower, how am I going to help my people? So it’s so bizarre that they end up sort of picking one dictator, and this is our man, at the expense of and alienating the people."
Why do U.S. foreign policy makers never learn that this strategy of backing the dictators never works? This has been a consistent problem not only in the Middle East, but in Latin America, Africa, and Asian. When will we ever learn the pretty simple equation that U.S.-backed military dictatorships + suppression of real democracy = eventual formation of terrorist groups and hatred of America world wide? It's fairly obvious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Imran Khan is absolutely right! The logic is pure and simple; if you channel all your aid and support through a military dictator more than half goes towards propping up the dictator. The people hardly feel a difference in their lives. If the same is dispensed through a popularly elected government most of it reaches the common man. The result; the public starts to feel that they are being helped and gradually get closer to their benefactors. That this simple logic seems beyond the comprehension of the powers that be is amazing to say the least. Even otherwise since the current policy has only alienated the people in most third world countries is it not time that the alternate was tried?
i agree, naushad, that it seems that this foreign policy strategy has failed so many times before that one really wonders why no one seems to propose alternative approaches. for example, even during the current campaign season, barack obama (a candidate that i've expressed support for on this blog) has proposed some fairly aggressive foreign policy moves, like carrying out unilateral attacks inside pakistan if evidence of al-quaeda's presence arises there (this fact is mentioned in the imran khan interview). this rhetoric disappoints me greatly, since obama posits himself as the candidate of conciliation and change, while the aforementioned foreign policy strategy falls in line with the aggressive interventionism of the last 30 or 40 years. even more disappointingly, this is the kind of rhetoric that american politicians have to make to get elected. we've gotten to the point where anything but out and out strike first aggression is considered political weakness and kowtowing.
Post a Comment