 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Oct. - 3 Nov. 1999 Issue No. 453 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Oct. - 3 Nov. 1999 Issue No. 453
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Study Special Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Discontent all round
By Gamal NkrumahA last minute plea by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was summarily dismissed. Even a joint appeal by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, published in the New York Times, fell on deaf ears.
There is an alarming autism that seems to come over nations, once the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) appears on their table. Russia refuses to ratify until America does. Meanwhile, Russia is following NATO's example in the Balkans as it tries to bomb the Chechen breakaway republic into submission. So many people have been treated unkindly by fate, that we can now do little more than lift our hands in despair. The Washington political establishment claims that what matters are the people themselves, the quality of their lives, the state of their development and, in a singularly outlandish concept, their "democracy ratings". For there is nothing Washington likes less than having to do business with dictators and corrupt elected politicians.
"Down with your damned laws, up with our development concerns," read an angry placard displayed by a demonstrator protesting the United States Senate's rejection of the CTBT last Wednesday. Washington refuses to do as it would be done by, and the world is fed up. And indeed, the Senate is making the world an increasingly dangerous place for all of us. Thousands are killed, many more maimed, millions are made homeless, branded as displaced persons and refugees. But aren't these mere statistics? What is most irritating is that the Senators continue to push their own line, while never hesitating to sacrifice the complexity of the issues. Nuclear technology and know-how is spreading like wildfire across Asia, the Middle East and South America. Last year's nuclear tests by India and Pakistan shook the world. Nor are the South Asian rivals the only aspirants. Many other nuclear hopefuls are waiting in the wings.
It is far easier to make speeches about good governance than to do what is needed to facilitate it. The US is forcing the world -- and the so-called Third World in particular -- to submit to its own version of what democracy is all about. In the process, it risks unleashing a chain reaction of events that can only lead to extreme political instability in the countries of the South.
There is a surreal quality to Washington's policies in Africa, Asia and South America. Take the case of Pakistan. When General Pervez Musharraf, the chief of the Pakistani armed forces, seized political control of the country on 12 October, sacked prime minister Nawaz Sharif and placed him under house arrest, few commentators were ready to acknowledge that the stance taken by Washington over the infiltration of Islamists into Kargil, Kashmir, was a deciding factor in the instigation of the Pakistani coup -- the first violent seizure of power the country has seen in 22 years. Musharraf's coup has the dubious distinction of marking the first time in history that a military junta has taken the reins of a self-proclaimed nuclear state. Washington meanwhile is sending out somewhat confusing signals to the world as to its own intentions. On the one hand, it is urging powers such as Russia, China, India and Pakistan to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, while at the same time, its lawmakers are refusing to ratify the CTBT. There is no limit to America's ability to urge greater democracy on others, yet its own ability to turn principles into practice remains largely unproven.
No sooner had news filtered through of the coup in Pakistan, than the world learnt of the moral cowardice being committed on Capitol Hill. A whole range of irrelevant issues became enmeshed in the Senators' calculations, and the final vote merely highlighted the extent to which international considerations have been marginalised by the American political establishment, and relegated to an irrelevant aside. Still, the closing century's single superpower still wields enormous influence worldwide. And the coup in Pakistan was, on one level, an indirect result of Washington's having pressurised premier Nawaz Sharif to pull out of Kashmir. Cutting a deal with the Americans, and by extension the Indians, proved to be a most unpopular move. Ironically, one of General Musharraf's first steps has been to withdraw Pakistani troops from the Indian border. Nevertheless, Washington seems happy with the general's reassurances that the coup represents "another path to democracy." Not only has American Ambassador to Pakistan William Milam publicly stated that General Musharraf is "a moderate, and patriotically motivated," but President Clinton himself told reporters in Washington last Monday that "a lot of what [Musharraf] said on the substance, including his conciliatory tone towards India, was quite good."
The whole episode is worryingly reminiscent of the situation in Indonesia. Again, pressure from Washington was instrumental in Jakarta's reluctant decision to abandon East Timor. And again, the unpopular move was to cost President BJ Habibie his job. Moreover, the possibility of a Pakistani-style military takeover can still not be ruled out. Moderate Islamist leader Abdurrahman Wahid has since been elected president and Megawati Sukarnoputri, daughter of the nation's founding father and first president Ahmed Sukarno, is to be his deputy. In Pakistan, the coup came in the wake of clashes between the prime minister and the president, the executive and the judiciary, Islamabad and the provinces. Likewise, in Indonesia, the results of the country's two-tier election, in which the parliamentary poll has no direct bearing on the choice of a president, are unlikely to satisfy an increasingly disenchanted public.
Some countries have the misfortune to experience at certain historical moments what can only be described as a general all-round discontent. Pakistan seems to be undergoing such a tortuous process even as I write. In fact, one of General Musharraf's first statements was to acknowledge that "we have hit rock bottom." This may not sound like an event to change the course of history. But Musharraf's example might still be copied by other beleaguered and politically-frustrated military establishments, who could prove all too eager to seek to rescue their countries from the doldrums. The Indonesian military is merely one possible candidate among many. The present Indonesian Constitution already gives the security forces considerable influence over the running of the country, especially through its ominously vague reference to the military's role in "guiding political development". Objectively, Indonesia and Pakistan are facing similar problems. Both have huge and rapidly growing populations that are overwhelmingly Muslim, and both have military leaders who are prone to behave arrogantly. The recent setbacks in Kashmir and East Timor can have done nothing to improve their humours.
Yet in other respects they were, until the events of last week, very different. While Islamabad has long had a decidedly Islamist outlook, the Indonesian political establishment has proved enduringly secular. Of course, there have been clashes between Muslims and members of Indonesia's substantial Christian minority. But Pakistan has also witnessed much violence between the majority Sunni Muslim community and the minority Shia Muslim population. In Indonesia, the secularist stamp of Sukarno, whose government was toppled in a coup d'etat engineered by former president Suharto, has remained a key character trait of both state and constitution. Now, with the election of an Islamist president, despite the moderate nature of his fundamentalism, religion may begin to play a more assertive role in the country's politics. And since none of the presidential candidates commanded a clear majority, in practice it was the army which had the last word.
If Sukarnoputri's popularity were to rise any further, if she were to upstage or replace the physically frail president, will the military intervene? These are pertinent questions. We will have to wait to see how history answers them. The world reacted to the US Senate's rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty with overwhelming disapproval. Similarly, the world condemned the military coup in Pakistan which ousted the popularly-elected government of Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan is under intense international pressure to observe constitutional propriety. America, however, is under no such obligation. While the wrath directed against Musharraf's coup is bound to influence the shaping of Pakistan's immediate future, Washington's political establishment is largely impervious to such external pressures.
Russia and China have signed the CTBT, but they have not ratified the treaty. In light of the Senate's decision, they are unlikely to do so. India and Pakistan, meanwhile, are not in a hurry either to sign or to ratify; nor is the Kashmir question any closer to being resolved. Only when some progress is made on this last issue, will Pakistan finally be able to settle its relationship with its giant neighbour. But given the recent rapprochement between Washington and New Delhi, Islamabad is in no position at this moment to lobby for Kashmiri liberation. General Musharraf, for his part, seems to understand the constraints under which he has to operate very well, and will surely toe the American line.
Economically, Pakistan is in dire straits. The ousted civilian administration of Nawaz Sharif had hoped that Western governments would consent to reschedule $300 million of the country's outstanding debts. The coup has doubtless dashed these hopes. Pakistan was also counting on a $280 million International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan. While Washington may, as a rule, be all too happy to impose economic sanctions and launch military strikes against what it describes as "pariah" and "rogue" states, it remains highly reluctant to use its influence to prod dysfunctional nations into making the transition to accountable democracy.
History may judge Washington severely in other matters too. American voters have ample reason for holding their elected leaders in disdain. Still, the American political establishment is enjoying a period of unprecedented power on the international stage. It clearly feels itself to be under no obligation to listen to complaints from a disgruntled world. Yet history will not be so kind as the regime's official hagiographers. Criticising the misuse of power by elected officials and military juntas in the Third World is not enough. Washington must openly acknowledge its responsibility for much of the political chaos in the South today. Until it does so, the world will continue to watch -- and to expect the worst.
