America’s ‘new deal’

THE US has a new president-elect, Barack Obama. He is the first black man to be elected to the office of the president.

In the past, black candidates did run for this high office but none crossed the primaries. As a first-generation immigrant child and 45 years after Martin Luther King Jr declared his dream for a colour-blind America, Obama has shattered a barrier more than two centuries old.

It is immaterial who or how many states voted for whom, or whether the Bradley factor and the Hillary factor influenced any part of the popular vote. What matters is that America has elected a new president with a comfortable lead both in the popular vote and the electoral college. But then it has elected a president every four years. What is so special about this election? It is a barrier crossed. The last citadel has been stormed. It is America’s new deal.

Obama’s election is a victory for America’s people and its democracy. His presence in the White House will be seen as a miracle which could happen only in America. But Obama made it not because he is black; he made it because he is younger, smarter, fresher, more dynamic and more energetic with a short history and no baggage. He embodies the America of today and tomorrow. His very nomination as a presidential candidate was hailed across the globe as if he had already won the presidency.

But there is another reason for this miracle to happen. America was fed up with George W. Bush, seen by the entire world as the problem of our times. In Obama’s case, the Bush factor has been the most decisive element. For the majority of American voters, Obama represented youth, vigour and an exit from eight years of domestic incompetence and a disastrous foreign policy. He symbolised hope for change which the American people, and in fact the whole world, have wanted to see as a departure from the go-it-alone belligerence of the Bush era.

As Josef Joffe, the publisher and editor of the prestigious German weekly Die Zeit, wrote on the Web: “The spirit of the times is for Obama — even if less so in Asia, Africa and Latin America than in western Europe. But an optical illusion may be influencing our mood — notably the comforting picture that it is not America but George W. Bush that is the problem. Out goes the ‘cowboy’, in comes Change and Hope, and we can love America again.”

Obama promises a new America for Americans and for the world, an America which hopefully will be at peace with itself and with the rest of the world. No doubt, the whole world has been holding its breath for his election because the incumbent US president, George W. Bush, in his eight years has played havoc with the world. Across the globe, there is a new mood altogether on the prospect of impending change in Washington. Everyone looks at Barack Obama’s victory as a sign of change in America’s global policies and behaviour and for peace in the world.

Washington’s overbearing global conduct during the Bush era has sparked unprecedented anti-Americanism reflecting a global aversion to US unilateralism and America’s might and power, its self-righteousness, its international conduct including the blatant use of force in Iraq and elsewhere, its intrusions on national sovereignty, its unabashed use of military power, and, in Robert McNamara’s words, “its contempt for moral and multilateral imperatives”.

No other nation has done greater damage to its own global prestige and credibility because of its misdirected policies and misplaced priorities. Ironically, most of these policies have given no relief to the world in terms of peace and development, nor have they brought any political or economic dividends to the US itself. The US has landed itself in one of the worst financial crises of its history. No wonder then that billions of people around the globe feel the outcome of this election will have a bearing on their lives.

Against this backdrop the change of leadership in Washington is a watershed for a change of direction of America’s thinking and behaviour towards the rest of the world. The US must avail this opportunity to redress the root cause of global anti-Americanism. A paradigm shift in US global policies and priorities is needed to address its negative perception as an arrogant superpower which is interventionist, exploitative, unilateralist and hegemonic.

President-elect Obama has been explaining how he would make a difference in America’s policies and in the lives of Americans as well as those of the people of the world. At the Denver convention, laying out his vision of change, Obama depicted America’s defining moment, “a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil and the American promise has been threatened once more.” He spoke of more Americans out of work, and more working harder for less. The blame, he said, lay squarely on “a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush”.

And he promised change for the world. “America, we are better than these last eight years,” he said. Obama also promised to end the war in Iraq and to “finish the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.” He also promised to restore America’s moral standing so that it is once more the last, best hope for all those “who believe in freedom, who long for peace and who yearn for a better future.”

Beyond this sense of hope, what does Obama’s election mean for Pakistan? There will be no big change in the focus of policy. Terrorism is an issue above party lines in Washington and evokes equal concern in the Democratic and Republican camps over Pakistan’s crucial role in fighting the roots of terrorism in the tribal areas. The modality of pressure might perhaps shift from direct military operations to greater diplomatic and economic engagement. The idea will be not to weaken democracy in Pakistan but to strengthen it to be a more effective and more reliable partner in our common pursuits.

Obama’s vice-president Joe Biden has already advocated the need for new dynamics in the US-Pakistan relationship with greater mutual content and people-centred socio-economic development. But given our governance failures and aggravating credibility crisis, any future US assistance to Pakistan will henceforth be based on performance and subject to rigorous oversight and accountability. The era of blank cheques is over. So should it be for our transactional relationship with the US which also needs to be rebuilt as a ‘new deal’.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

A reason for hope

AS I write this article the US presidential election is currently underway. If the polls are accurate, history should be created, for by electing a black, whose people were given the right to vote only a few years before he was born, the Americans would be sending a message of hope and engagement to the world.

Barack Obama’s entry into the White House, should it take place, would be a truly seminal event. It would establish the US as a multiracial society and also signal repudiation of Bush’s disastrous policy of unilateralism that permitted the US to arrogate to itself the authority to do what it alone judged to be right.

In the domestic sphere, Obama has hewed closely to the Democratic Party’s traditional policies that include raising taxes to ensure greater wealth distribution, while also focusing on energy, health, education and social issues. But as Pakistanis, our primary interest lies in his likely policies, even while recognising that his administration will pursue goals that promote US interests. Others may claim that with its failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with its current economic crisis, the US has fallen off the perch that it occupied as the world’s sole superpower, yet it remains both the world’s best hope as well as its most frightening player.

The US president is not all-powerful as is generally believed — the constitutional provision of the separation of powers ensures this. Nevertheless, the complexities of the global village make it inevitable that he becomes a powerful vehicle for both good and evil. In the case of Obama, both the fears and expectations are much greater.

Obama’s references to Pakistan have however been disconcerting, especially his comment that “we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Laden, if we have them in our sights”. But if analysed dispassionately, it is no different from what the Bush administration has been doing. Moreover, Obama has also promised a radical overhaul of US policy, making it clear that “only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move towards the goal of securing of nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states”.

Obama is also the first presidential candidate to stress the importance of “trying to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and to try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants”. This has upset some Indians, who stress that Kashmir can only be resolved bilaterally, but a helpful nudge from Washington, if it can promote peace and understanding in the region, should be welcome.

As for John McCain, he has no faith in the UN, but wants to see a ‘league of democracies’ pitted against an ‘alliance of autocracies’. On the current economic crisis in the US McCain’s reaction has been confused and incoherent.

According to those who have known him well, Obama is a cautious deliberator, who prizes consensus. While endorsing him for the presidency, The Washington Post observed that “he is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus building”. The New York Times too has endorsed Obama, pointing out that Bush has saddled his successor with “a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect its citizens”.

Admittedly, whoever wins the White House will confront an overwhelming number of national security issues. Fighting terrorism and dealing with militants along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border may be the best known ones, but ending the Iraq war, stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and ensuring that North Korea honours its promise to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme are amongst other urgent problems facing the next president. No less troubling are issues such as a resurgent Russia, a roiling Middle East and an increasingly assertive China. But if The Washington Post’s assessment that Obama has “displayed a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness” is correct, then America, and by extension, the rest of the world, should be served well by his administration.

Some Pakistanis may suffer from a mood of cynicism fearing that the US having already opted to establish strategic ties to India, will continue to see Pakistan not only as the epicentre of global terrorism but also as a potential proliferator of nuclear technology and exporter of extremism. But we need not despair. There is already evidence of a rethinking in Washington, with the Bush administration coming around to the view that the US needs to shift emphasis from military attacks to political accommodation and economic development as instruments for the desired shift in the campaign against terror. There are winds of change across the Afghan political landscape as well.

The Pakistani leadership needs to reiterate its commitment to the war on terrorism, but also stress that as a democracy it has to pursue policies which accord with the wishes of its people. It should also emphasise that while extremism and militancy have to be contained, this can be achieved better by a judicious mix of political dialogue, economic assistance and social and administrative reforms, rather than by brute force alone. As regards economic assistance, Islamabad needs to push for liberal trade terms, rather than monetary handouts. Finally, Washington must be encouraged to use its offices to nudge both India and Pakistan to resolve their differences, as articulated by Obama. In the final analysis, however, it is Pakistan that has to set its house in order, satisfy the concerns of the international community, maximise its strengths and expand its room to manoeuvre.

Hopefully, the next US president will recognise that unilateralism, having already caused grave damage to the world, including the US, stands thoroughly discredited. This is a truly multilateral world where new powers are emerging, with the current financial crisis accelerating this process. In this global village, the US president, if he comes with a message of conciliation and engagement, could open a new chapter of understanding and cooperation among nations.

Tackling the quake aftermath

THE scale of the Oct 29 earthquake in Balochistan is at once vast and limited. The affected areas are miles apart and, mercifully, very sparsely populated. But sheer facts are uncanny given the tragedy and of no consolation to those who have lost everything, including the irreplaceable nearest and dearest.

The worst affected are a number of remote union councils in the neighbouring districts of Ziarat and Pishin which lie on the east and west respectively of the mountain range which was the epicentre; the two towns thankfully avoided damage. The government is still in the process of conducting a survey to determine the actual number of people affected, houses destroyed, casualties suffered, and estimating the funds needed for the rehabilitation of those affected.

This will take more than its sweet time. Meanwhile, the victims of the quake desperately need the basic wherewithal to survive the aftermath, especially the fast-approaching winter. Night-time temperatures fall below freezing point already; daytime highs, combined with the wind-chill factor, barely cross 10 degrees Celsius under a clear sky. Tents provided to the survivors will not do for long. What the people need are concrete shelters, which can withstand the still-shaking earth under their feet. There have been over a thousand aftershocks of varying intensity since the big tremor.

Another barely noted but perhaps more important aspect is the lingering trauma being suffered by the survivors. Many are at a loss to detail coherently what and who they have lost and how. For the men, who are occupied by the daily rigmarole of survival, a media obsessed with breaking news and getting views is making demands on their time and is adding to the survivors’ emotional toll.

Women, many of them having sustained injuries, are also physically restrained and even less equipped to deal with the trying situation. The women have little to say even under normal circumstances and are arguably more burdened with both grief and the increased responsibility of caring for the many orphans they are now surrounded by.

While the men have an outlet for their trauma — at least they can talk about their grief and losses to the many male volunteers who have swarmed the affected villages — there are no women volunteers, nor even paramedics on the spot to respond to the women’s medical or emotional concerns. Children too are equally neglected.

The provincial government’s involvement in the practical relief effort is negligible as seen and ascertained by those visiting the worst-affected areas. It won’t be an exaggeration to say that the provincial government is conspicuous by its absence from the scene of the disaster. Ironic as it may sound, the Balochistan government spends hundreds of thousands of rupees per month on the upkeep of the largest-ever provincial cabinet, yet Ms Rubina Irfan, the provincial law minister who took the trouble of visiting some of the affected villages in Ziarat district last week, said that her government could not cope with the challenge at hand. She demanded that the federal government and aid agencies must come to the rescue of those so badly affected. This even before the provincial government has ordered an assessment of the damage done or documented the actual number of people who need rehabilitation.

For now, there is no telling who is queuing up for relief goods at the many camps set up by donors and whether those queuing up are actually victims of the earthquake. However, those asking for help are largely impoverished people and genuinely need basics such as expensive wheat flour. Even if they haven’t lost their homes to the deadly quake, their daily sustenance and ability to provide a meal for their families in the approaching winter are genuine concerns.

There are ample rations and tents to be given away which are being given to whoever comes asking for them. Some of the relief goods thus dispensed will invariably make their way back to the market. Tents are in high demand in Quetta. They are now selling for Rs2,000-6,500 a piece, up from Rs500-1,500.

As for the victims of the tragedy, there seems to be unanimity of opinion that they should either be given enough cash to rebuild their lost homes or provision should be made on a war footing to get weather-proof concrete shelters in place for them before the fast-approaching winter sets in.

Failing this, the aftermath of the quake could claim more lives than the original tragedy through the onset of disease.