Pakistan III

Some folks have been making the easy logical mistake of thinking that because there is a) instability in Pakistan and b) a bunch of Taliban and al Qaeda taking refuge in the north of that country that the influx of the latter have some causality towards the former. This is so barely accurate that I hesitate to even acknowledge it due to the greater damage done by the misconception. For the ongoing revolt in Swat, the influx is certainly not helping and it causes a distraction and disincentive to military action in the area.

The broader, more seriously problematic instability is a function of the misrule of Musharraf, the peculiarities of Pakistani politics and the realities of trying to govern a country with vast wealth stratification, cultural divides and reverberating historical troubles. It does not, however, have to do with some gun toting beardies from Afghanistan piling over the border. For my take on the likelihood of "Islamist" takeover in Pakistan, see the Pakistan II post.

If it were not for the misery and injustice involved in jailing of activists, journalists, judges and lawyers and the pathetic excuse that the martial law was in reaction to Islamist threats, I would still be behind Musharraf 100%. His influence had been positive and apart from his myopic views of the problems of Pakistan, he was governing in a way that lines up well with what Pakistan needs. It seems unlikely that electoral politics or the chaos of a coup would bring as suitable a leader but the results of martial law are completely unacceptable. This puts me in the awkward position of at once demanding an end to martial law, release of the captives and reinstatement of the judiciary as well as not really advocating a change in the power structure until a more suitable method for grooming political leaders is in place.

Smoke

Staying up way past when I need to sleep to be less sick in the morning and ready to try to get fit at the gym, I tuned in to a show about Hip Hop Theater. It was very interesting but sort of a mess as a whole, as these things tend to be, because the various parties involved did not have a consistent idea of what the problem was or what the dialogue around the problem should be. Some people were mad at Capitalism, some people were mad at those co-opting hip-hop's inherent political critique and others were mad that white people controlled the means of distribution. Now, the real revolutionary says that those are all the same parcel of The Real Problem but that does not help much with solution or dialogue.

What really hit home, though, is that I would be defensive about the role and blame assigned to white people by the panelists. I am not a programming director for Clear Channel, I think that they do a lot of harm to the world. I am also not a force for gentrification in my "transitional" neighborhood, though I am an interloper. In fact, I am generally sympathetic to the remarks that the panelists were making, if I think about them as intellectual ideas, so why the defensiveness? Part is obviously insecurity and my natural combativeness. Primarily, though, it is easy for me to forget about racial problems as a white person and really easy to not see them as greater than individual-to-individual affairs.

Everytime that I remember this simple truth, I run a thought experiment. Usually it is not deliberately, but I am dumb to the degree that I accidentally rediscover this simple truth about once every two weeks, starting from scratch each time. Slavery was only four generations ago. Jim Crow was one, two or none, depending on how old you are. Apartheid South Africa was almost certainly in your lifetime if you are reading this. That means that stories of being enslaved are just as present in the lives of people today as the stories I hear of family dairy farms, portraits on the stairs and antiques in the house. Memories of Jim Crow, lynchings and state force against demonstrators for an end to segregation are more recent than my grandmother's tales of washing clothes by hand and dusting to get a nickel and a dime for both movies and a candy bar on Saturday afternoon. Just as recent as my dad's stories about tormenting his frat brothers' oppugnants or my uncle getting even with the boy who made fun of his crutches by beating his tormentor with them. While you have been around to watch television, President Reagan vetoed a bill imposing sanctions on South Africa for perpetuating the Apartheid system. That same president pushed to reinstate the tax exempt status of private schools that discriminated based on race.

Our social contract requires a great deal of trust for our society to function effectively. We all sacrifice some liberty, some privilege in order that all may enjoy greater security, happiness and, in the end, freedom. Even if you think that racism is done and gone from our society, white people have been abusing that social contract to the detriment of whatever groups were not considered white up until, at the very least, the late 1980's. It is irresponsible and unduly idealistic to imagine that when it becomes shameful to say that black people are dumber than white people, and the state no longer condones open discrimination, the air is cleared and we all get a fresh start. That trust needs to be earned and the social bonds of our Grand Experiment need to be reforged in a just way if we expect the system to work properly.

Ben Folds Five are singing about a relationship here but the message resonates: "Those who say the past is not dead, well, stop and smell the smoke. You keep saying the past is not dead, well stop and smell the smoke." Even when racial prejudice disappears, the stink will not wash out without deliberate effort.


EDIT: I left out the most important part, the bit tying the beginning to the latter half. In instances like this in which one is listening to someone else share feelings they cannot fully comprehend, it is important to be conscious in listening constructively and openly rather than defensively or in a critiquing manner. Sharing your own view point and justifying defensiveness is rarely productive, particularly initially.

Thanksgiving

It is nice to know that at the end of the day, there is a lot more to this world than what man creates.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/20/1110273-hailstorm-sets-off-bomblets-in-lebanon

The story describes hailstorms in Lebanon that are essentially mine-sweeping the unexploded cluster bombs that Israel dropped there that would otherwise lie dormant and potentially injure people when they were stepped on. Cluster bombs, like mines, are indiscriminate killers, frequently staying in the ground for years and injuring non-combatants long after the cessation of hostilities. This is borderline illegal under current international law and their use in any case other than absolute necessity should be objectionable to any civilized society.

It reminds me of a story that Kurt Vonnegut tells in Slaughterhouse Five about man, war and nature. Another world is possible, Happy Thanksgiving:

"Billy Pilgrim padded downstairs on his blue and ivory feet. He went into the kitchen, where the moonlight called his attention to a half bottle of champagne on the kitchen table, all that was left from the reception in the tent. Somebody had stoppered it again. "Drink me," it seemed to say.

So Billy uncorked it with his thumbs. It didn't make a pop. The champagne was dead. So it goes.

Billy looked at the clock on the gas stove. He had an hour to kill before the saucer came. He went into the living room, swinging the bottle like a dinner bell, turned on the television. He came slightly unstuck in time, saw the late movie backwards, then forwards again. It was a movie about American bombers in the Second World War and the gallant men who flew them. Seen backwards by Billy, the story went like this :

American planes, full of holes and wounded men and corpses took off backwards from an airfield in England. Over France, a few German fighter planes flew at them backwards, sucked bullets and shell fragments from some of the planes and crewmen. They did the same for wrecked American bombers on the ground, and those planes flew up backwards to join the formation.

The formation flew backwards over a German city that was in flames. The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes. The containers were stored neatly in racks. The Germans below had miraculous devices of their own, which were long steel tubes. They used them to suck more fragments from the crewmen and planes. But there were still a few wounded Americans, though, and some of the bombers were in bad repair. Over France, though, German fighters came up again, made everything and everybody as good as new.

When the bombers got back to their base, the steel cylinders were taken from the racks and shipped back to the United States of America, where factories were operating night and day, dismantling the cylinders, separating the dangerous contents into minerals. Touchingly, it was mainly women who did this work. The minerals were then shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody ever again.

The American fliers turned in their uniforms, became high school kids. And Hitler turned into a baby, Billy Pilgrim supposed. That wasn't in the movie. Billy was extrapolating. Everybody turned into a baby, and all humanity, without exception, conspired biologically to produce two perfect people named Adam and Eve, he supposed."

Quoted from: http://leonardo.spidernet.net/Artus/2386/slaughter5.htm

Pakistan II

A quick bit on the not-Musharraf political look on Pakistan. It is often said but more frequently forgotten that the so-called Islamist parties in Pakistan have never managed more than a very meager poll showing. The emergency rule should not be excused as a move to prevent the beardies from taking over with their ninja turtles behind them. The folks being detained are affiliated with the legal system or are political opponents of Musharraf.

On the other hand, something similar could be said about pre-Revolution Iran. Despite the importance of Qom to Muslim scholarship and power, Iran did not have a history of political control by religious [I am loathe to use the word] extremists. However, when the people began to move against the Shah, the more powerful Communists made common cause with the Muslims seeking Islamic rule in overthrowing what was unquestionably a horrible leader. It was only after the Revolution began to get traction that the Islamic side began to gain power and until near the end, it was not certain that the Revolution would not be written into history as a victory over the capital class by the working class.

For Pakistan, there are major differences, despite the similar beginning of a loud but politically fringe religious group. First, there is no major, semi-mainstream secular group with which they can partner as they could with the Communists in Iran. Second, the level of oppression and polarization under the Shah makes Musharraf look like a plumper Mr. Rogers. Third, and most important, the "Islamists," as they are called here, are much less a monolithic group than they were in Iran. If you ask the average, high awareness American where the Pakistani "Islamists" come from, they will say Saudi madrasseh. Leaving aside the mixed bag that is the Arab-financed religious education in South Asia, a lot of people who that American would label "Islamist" want nothing at all to do with the Saudis, their madrasseh, or the ideology related to them. These just make for a good and notable target because they are an out-group among an out-group in Pakistan.

My last point about Pakistan relates more closely with my earlier post. The most frustrating aspect to the whole business of the emergency rule (apart from the human rights of the people beaten and detained) is that while the actions are despicable, there is no one else to take over and that is Musharraf's fault. He cannot pass the buck after having ruled alone for a decade. The opposition is the same as it was when he came to power and they are still unacceptable. By building oppositional political structures, Musharraf would have faced criticism just as he did by allowing freedom of the press. However, it would have been a greater threat to his power as it could not be shut down on a whim as he has shown the Pakistani media still can. The benefit to having an oppositional political system, however, only shows up after he has gone, just as the benefits to a stable, powerful, multinational system of global justice only shows up for America after we are done being hegemonic.

The only way for real improvement now is for someone who is not interested in power for themselves to make tremendously personally risky moves to take over Pakistan by a transparent and optimistic process. This, in face of the great power of Musharraf and Bhutto and the potentially violent demands of the minority who want greater Islamic control of the state. After coming to power, he or she must continue Musharraf's work while pushing the country towards a sustainable system of governance, including rigorous critiques from opponents who, by the unrest fomented by their criticisms, will not allow him or her to finish the job they start. In other words, following the emergency rule, Pakistan needs to find a rainbow-colored, lucky four-leaf clover in the shape of a horseshoe with a big pot of gold beneath it. Also, they need Musharraf, Bhutto and Sharif to retire with their fortunes and leave Pakistan the hell alone.

Pakistan

If you are interested in the law and/or are concerned about Pakistan, you must have some opinion about the last few days. While I can see why the "Emergency Rule is the only way to save the country" people think the way that they do, that idea suffers from a cynicism and shortsightedness that leads to many of the regretful, pessimistic moves any society makes in a time of great stress.

When Musharraf first came to power, he deposed the corrupt Nawaz Sharif (who had earlier defeated the very corrupt Bhutto administration in an election) and made the central point of his exercise the elimination of corruption. Unfortunately, his self-confidence over-ripened to the point where he now sees himself as Pakistan's only hope for improving out of its corrupt governmental tradition. In some ways, there is truth in that idea. The only real options for replacing him are two proven-corrupt leaders. However, in his desperate power grab, he is damning himself to a continuation of that corrupt tradition, even if he has not got his own "Mr. 10%" style sobriquet.

The situation strikes me as similar to the one in which the USA finds itself. Currently, we are the global hegemon who has been in power for around sixty years (give or take) and have been essentially unchallenged for almost twenty. America is, in my opinion, a better ruler for the world than China or India or the USSR would have been. However, rather than using our position to set up a world order under which we could all comfortably live even after America is no longer hegemonic, the USA has taken the shortsighted and cynical tack of doing everything possible and necessary to maintain that control. With the extent (and thus limits) of our power shown in Iraq, we are no longer the inestimatably mighty force in the world that we were and we have lost the moral ground on issues like torture, respect for democracy and human rights. As American power ebbs, the global situation is better than it was prior to our country's ascendency but much poorer than it could be had America directed its energy at an equitable, fair, safe and healthy system under which the world could operate after America was no longer directly policing the world.

Similarly, Musharraf has done very serious work in cutting back the corruption in Pakistan. The national highway police and road system, for example, are fit to be proud of now. However, without having done any work to engineer a political society based in law and systems rather than personality and influence, he has failed to provide for his country's success following is inexorably limited rule. That is the real tragedy of the emergency rule: there is no improving from here. He has sullied himself with this business to the point that he cannot be an effective anti-corruption worker any longer.

Choices

A lot of intelligent people misuse the word "ambivalence" to mean something like "no strong preference between choices." However, ambi- and -valence refer to two possibilities that both have compelling reasons to choose one over the other. In the current world we have more resources and much less existential impact from each and every choice we make in comparison to colonial or antebellum America. Even into the early part of last century, prior to the New Deal, individuals had more limits on the choices that they made and much deeper consequences on those choices they did have. Today, the concept of having two choices about which the chooser has no strong reason to pick one or the other and no real compulsion to make the choice at all is probably much useful. I wish there were a single term like "ambivalent" to use for that situation. The closest I have come is nonplussed but that refers to the emotional state of the chooser, not to their mind of the choice.

Go Team America

The American system has been stressed in the last six years. From outside attacks, inside hysteria, high-level obfuscation and bullying, and low-level panic, the country has never been so superficially perturbed and concurrently stable and calm. While it is fair to decry the perversions of American traditions (liberty, due process, openness, etc.), what we have seen in this administration ought to give heart to all those with an interest in the success of the American project.

For example, in the UK, the case of Lofti Raissi - an Algerian national detained at the request of the US on suspicion of involvement in training the September 11 pilots - resulted in his release from high security detention after five months, after the US authorities consistently failed to provide evidence to justify his extradition. This case, like other that have arisen elsewhere, highlights concerns as to how it would have unfolded had extradition been requested after the entry into force of the new US-UK extradition treaty removing the evidentiary requirement, and the potential impact on similar cases in the future. The prospect of Raissi having been extradited despite the lack of evidence against him, and ranking among the many detained without trial by the US, underscores the importance of safeguarding judicial protections at the extradition stage.

This is from page 135 of The War on Terror and the Framework of International Law by Helen Duffy. While the idea that other states have to fear extraditing people to our country for fear of unfair trials (rather than the traditional excuse of facing the death penalty) cannot be comforting to Americans, we should take heart that in spite of this, our system is holding together. Even if you think that our conduct of the WAR ON TERROR is against all the founding principals of our country, the country still stands and the system that allowed these changes to happen can just as easily swing the country back to strict respect for human dignity, rights and life. Unless you think that the extra-judicial treatment of detainees is itself the complete failure of the American experiment, we are still progressing and this is something to be weathered like the Teapot Dome Scandal or the Saturday Night Massacre.

Having our country's surface disrupted while the water below is calm is preferable to a system in which the army refuses the command of the President when it disagrees with his political choices or one in which the US Attorneys strike when their work is being manipulated. CIA agents were torturing suspects, refused to continue when it seemed that their action was against the law and then resumed the program under the aegis of enhanced interrogations when those were given a legal foundation in the Office of Legal Counsel. We still have a government of laws, not of men. This leads us to let our mistakes go longer than they would with a hero to correct them, but it also gives us protection from the worst of chaos. The only way for the great experiment to truly fail would be for the citizens to demand a government of men in lieu of the law. This is what the David Addington wing of the executive branch seems to desire but the 2006 elections and Bush's poll numbers say that the tide is sweeping back out.