WhirledView

Made (and Unmade) in Pakistan—and Elsewhere

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

I’ve just seen a very engaging documentary about energetic, enterprising young professionals in Lahore, Pakistan, and for over an hour I felt I was happily back in a milieu it’s been my pleasure and  privilege to be part of.  The film is called Made in Pakistan.  It’s a wonderful reminder that most people in most countries, Pakistan included, are focused on living dynamic, responsible, constructive, even creative lives.   So here they are, two women, two men: Waleed, a young lawyer passionately devoted to the rule of law; Rabia, a young writer and mother struggling to put a savvy  new magazine into the black; Tara, a fashionista and event planner whose go-go-go business is expanding into an all-Pakistan operation; Mohsin, a young politician running the family-business which  happens to center on elections.

Law, politics, journalism, fashion—these are four essential professions that, believe it or not, thrive in urban Pakistan, and Made in Pakistan shows us how four very appealing practitioners manage lives as fascinating and complex as those of their counterparts in New York or London.  Producer Ayesha Khan wants us to understand this, not from grim statistics but by sharing moments with people whose unscripted authenticity is insidiously appealing.  She wanted us to see that there is more to Pakistan than narrow religiosity and violence.  And she has succeeded.

So check it out, when you can.  Made in Pakistan was one of the favorites at the just closed Santa Fe Film Festival.  You’ll see why.

Indian Embassy Publishes Well-Vetted Text, not Juicy Transcript of PM Manmohan Singh’s CFR Address

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

What a powerful address! I thought. The whole agenda is here.  Boom!  Boom! Boom!  I was watching Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s address to the Council on Foreign Relations via C-Span on Monday night. 

But the question-and-answer period was even more interesting. Perhaps that’s why it was missing from the version I printed out from the Indian Embassy’s website, although the U.S. State Department scrupulously includes such exchanges as well as any prepared presentation when American leaders speak to foreign audiences.  These missing passages were so arresting, in fact, that both American and Indian newspapers quoted them in subsequent new stories.

Fortunately the Council on Foreign Relations provides a full transcript of speaker’s interactions with its audiences on its website.  Here the salient passage:

HAASS: Last question about China. There has been a lot of talk in the literature about the comparison of the Indian and the Chinese approaches to development. A question I had is, why do you believe that India's is preferable, assuming you do, given that China has grown at a higher rate for more years?

SINGH: Well, there is no doubt that the Chinese growth performance is superior to Indian performance. But I've always believed that there are other values which are important than the growth of the gross domestic product. I think the respect for fundamental human rights, the respect for the rule of law, the respect for multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious rights, I think those have values also.

There are several dimensions of human freedom, which are not always (caught ?) by the numbers with regard to the gross domestic product. So I do believe that even though the Indian performance with regard to GDP might not be as good as the Chinese, certainly I would not like to choose the Chinese, but I would prefer to stick to the India part.

Also, I believe India may appear as indecisive democracy at times. And it does, because many democracies are short-term maximizers. They're not able to take a long-term view.

But I have also believed that once a democracy decides on the basis of a wide-ranging consensus, any reforms that are undertaken will be far more durable, will be far more effective than reforms introduced by the writ of a ruling group in a non-democratic setup.

HAASS: Ladies and gentlemen, you've just been treated to an economist saying there's more to life than GDP. (Laughter and applause.) This is an important moment. (Laughs.)

Based on his administration's record of retaining all too many Bush administration anti-terrorism measures, I’ve come to doubt the strength of President Obama’s commitment to civil liberties, but at least he was willing to sign on to some “shared values” in the Joint Statement issued by the two leaders, who  

noted that the shared values cherished by their peoples and espoused by their founders – democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights – are acquiring an increasingly greater prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure and sustainable world. These values are exemplified by the vibrant linkages between their peoples, which are a unique asset for both countries, and are reflected in the role played by the Indian-American community.

Otherwise, during this five day state visit, it was Manmohun Singh who kept hammering away at the democratic principles that should make for a close and enduring relationship between the U.S. and India.  During the Welcome Ceremony, he said:

India and American are separated by distance, but bound together by the values of democracy, pluralism, rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms.

Toasting at the State Dinner, he said:

Mr. President, your journey to the White House has captured the imagination of millions and millions of people in India.  You are an inspiration to all those who cherish the values of democracy, diversity and equal opportunity.

No doubt these bits are digs at China as well as a way of reminding the American president that India really is a more compatible partner. Either way, keep it up, Mr. Prime Minister. American leaders these days tend to forget what America is/was/should be about.

Pleasing China, Insulting India

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

The president of a republic bows to an emperor!  Not a courteous reciprocal nod in lieu of a handshake, but very very deeply!  Didn’t anyone bother to tell Barack Obama that presidents and emperors are equals as heads of state?  Even I, this mere citizen of a republic, would not curtsey to the Queen of England or bow to an emperor any further than he would bow to me.  The U.S. rejected subservience to hereditary rulers long long ago. 

Subsequently Obama’s conduct in China amounted to one kowtow after another.  Hasn’t he got protocol people who can explain the difference, verbal and otherwise, between due respect for others and servility?  Ah well, debtors can’t be choosers, I suppose.

And then!  Did your ears hear this?  Did my eyes see this?  It wasn’t just a matter of overdosing on politeness.  It was a gaffe of monumental—should I say Himalayan?—proportions.  The joint statement by the U.S. and China on Tuesday said:

The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace and development in that region.

The Chinese must have chortled over that one! 

But surely Obama’s advisers realize that India and China are bitter competitors who nevertheless sometimes manage to do a little mutually beneficial trading.  Trade aside, they  have an adversarial relationship along the northern border of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh (see my recent post) and in Kashmir.  Mere weeks before Barack Obama set foot in Beijing, China was once again claiming territory that China had invaded in 1962.  Surely Obama’s advisors also know that Pakistan became an India-threatening nuclear power with the assistance of China.  It worked like this: India needed the bomb because China had the bomb, so China helped Pakistan to the bomb in order to retilt the balance in favor of China.  In fact, China has pursued a relentless policy of isolating and undermining India for decades, as I’ll detail below.  How, then, could  President Barack Obama have invited China to join the U.S. in “promoting peace” in South Asia?  You don’t ask a partisan to mediate.

As for asking China to “promote development” in South Asia, surely India could be expected to take that as an insult, pure and simple.  Should India trade the democratic model for one party rule?  Should India trade freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, a free press, true ethnic and minority rights for Beijing’s totally authoritarian model?   As the old saying went, Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time, but were they models for the good society?  Sadly, the U.S. chooses convenience over democracy again and again.  We expected better of Obama.

The Borderline Blues

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Walls are always porous in one way or another, yet people keep building them because boundaries are frightening places where various sorts of intellectual and physical miscegenation occur.

The space between armies or warring states is traditionally a no man’s land, a place that’s safe for no one.  As one set of laws and customs meets another, a gap occurs where no writ applies, especially if that boundary coincides with mountains or jungles or pirate-ridden oceans or vast deserts, all of which have always symbolized the unbounded—the savage, the fantastic, the unowned, the undisciplined.  Walled or not, legal or not, borders are essentially arbitrary.  They break down.  They become bones of contention.  They make news.

Borders have been much in the news this week.  The Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago.  That erasure of ideological boundaries was celebrated this week.  Meanwhile, India and China were at odds over the Dali Lama’s visit to Tawang because the two countries cannot agree on where their Eastern boundary runs. Here at home, the U.S. Supreme Court has to decide whether there is an inviolable line to be drawn between adulthood and adolescence when it comes to punishment for violent crime.  Many of the issues in play during the current period of economic recovery have to do with the boundaries between government and private enterprise in our economic lives. The American doctrine of the separation of church and state is also a border issue—as is the application of Sharia Law.  

Dragons and Diplomacy

So far as China is concerned, the dragon has been breathing heavily, in hopes of controlling people and events far from its physical borders.   The Frankfurt Book Fair erupted in controversy when China attempted to dictate which writers of Chinese origin could be featured during the Fair.   Because of its intense concern about its internal boundaries, China breathes heavily on countries that allow Uighur nationalists to speak more freely outside China than they may within Chinese borders; ditto for Tibetans.    As I wrote last week, China’s baleful influence even reached into the White House, preventing President Obama from meeting with the  Dali Lama.  Sanctions and financial manipulations are other ways to achieve, more or less subtly or successfully, cross border influence.

Thus, there are so many ways in which countries attempt to control events beyond their  formal boundaries.  War is one.  The threat of war is almost as effective.  Diplomacy is another way to achieve influence across borders, as is its hand-maiden public diplomacy, which characteristically attempts to distinguish itself from propaganda. The latter is no small debate.  It concerns the borders to be respected when attempting to influence.  At one end of the spectrum is rational persuasion through information and facts; at the other end is emotional manipulation—or worse.  At what point does legitimate persuasion turn into fraud, deceit, duplicity, conning?  All of the latter are usually considered to be immoral and/or illegal, however effective they may be in achieving the manipulator’s ends.  And how about this one—when does psychological pressure or physical discomfort turn into torture?  In domestic politics, a related boundary question is this: when does an inspiring speech turn into demagoguery?  Indeed, much of the debate over health care reform has crossed the border from informed debate to scare-mongering.

Failing/Passing the Dalai Lama Test

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Because the declining power that is America must kowtow to a burgeoning China on trade and financial issues, American President Barak Obama ducked the opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama before he sets off for Beijing in a few weeks.  That’s the way the Times of India reports the behavior of the first U.S. president to shy away from a meeting with the exiled Buddhist leader.

The Tawang Tiff

Perhaps Barack should borrow a page or two from India’s book.  Despite very strenuous objections sometimes amounting to threats, India is allowing the Dalai Lama to visit Tawang, a territory that China claims.  The Chinese also protested when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did some electioneering in Tawang some months ago.   Singh did not change his plans.

What’s the context here?  Back in 1914, when the U.K. ruled India and Tibet acted like an independent entity, although it was still more or less under Chinese suzerainty, the McMahon Line was drawn east from Bhutan to define the northern boundary of British India.  This is now the Line of Actual Control and it was recognized by China in 1957, but deep down Beijing is not happy: this area that is now the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh should be Chinese South Tibet.  In 1962 the Chinese army invaded the district of Arunachal known as Tawang.  The Red army swarmed over Se La, a 14,000 foot high pass, and drove south, pulling up heart-stoppingly close to the Brahmaputra River before withdrawing to China’s side of the traditional border.  Ever since, there have been occasional rumblings from China, a far-from-dormant volcano warning that eruptions are always possible.

The Rules of the Game

Now China was mightly miffed back then.  The 14th Dalai Lama had, only a couple of years before, escaped from Chinese control (house arrest, essentially) in Lhasa.  He crossed snowy Himalayan passes that took him through Tawang and eventually down into the rice fields of Assam along the Bhramaputra River.  India gave him asylum and allowed him to set up a government in exile in Dharamshala, which is still his headquarters.  India laid down a few rules, the most important being: no mounting insurrections against China from India territory.  Just last summer, India refused to permit a group of India-based Tibetans to cross the border and disrupt the Olympics in Beijing.  But otherwise, the Dalai Lama is free to go where he wishes and to say what he pleases, as are the thousands of other Tibetans who are based in India.  It helps that Tenzin Gyatso has proved to be a very wise and discreet leader.  He recognizes the limits of India’s patience and the material weakness of his own position vis-à-vis China. 

Not that India doesn't calculate its approach to China very shrewdly. Even as India insists that the Dalai Lama is free to go to Tawang, an ancient center of Tibetan buddhism where even in our times there is a large, active and prestigious monastery, the Indian government is not issuing press permits to foreign correspondents to cover the visit.  There will be no media circus—at least not officially.  But reports say the press are filtering in, which means that the Chinese can grumble all they want.  India!  Such a disorganized country! 

Meanwhile, after a meeting two days ago between Man Mohan Singh and his Chinese counterpart Wen Jibao, China began singing a somewhat different song.  The criticism of India largely disappeared, although the Dalai Lama himself was still the target of harsh criticism.

Is Appeasement the Word?

Watching the latest act in the intriguing dance between the Asian giants, I found myself thinking of Barack Obama again.  Perhaps if he had been brave enough to act according to principle in his own country, in his own capital, in his own White House, he would find himself in a stronger, less compromised position to do business with the Chinese, who have not dealt gently with the weak in recent times.  By not meeting with the Dalai Lama for a cordial few minutes, he has announced that his commitment to the First Amendment is for sale.  Freedom of speech?  Optional.  Freedom of assembly?  Overrated.  Freedom of Religion?  Nonsense.

Now will you help us?  Pretty please!

Does anyone believe that such kowtowing will make the  Chinese more generous on issues of importance of the U.S.?  What’s more, world domination may be built on raw power, but world leadership is built on principle.  I’d thought that Barack Obama understood that.

Hillary in Pakistan: Assessing That “Charm Offensive”

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Who came up with the idea of calling Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan a “charm offensive”?  First of all, the term is sexist.  Imagine sending Richard Holbrooke on a charm offensive!  Secondly, the concept is insulting to Pakistan.  As if that proud and prickly country would take kindly to the publically-declared notion that it could be seduced into dancing for America.  Finally, and most important, anyone who is in the least aware of the complexities of the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan would know that what’s needed in this relationship is insight, persistence and constancy, not a three days’ flirtation which would be only too reminiscent of the on-and-off romance that the U.S. has been so angrily and so often accused of.  This week included.

So Washington is shocked that Hillary didn’t sweep particulars under a lovely Baloch or Kashmiri carpet?  I am going to take issue and suggest that she did exactly what was needed.  She let some fresh air into the discussion.  She got serious.  Most likely we shouldn't assume that her comments about someone surely knowing the whereabouts of al Qaeda or about trust needing to be a two-way street or about Pakistan’s needing to take responsibility for education were bloopers, blunders, or obnoxiously preachy.  I think they were carefully embedded in the innocuous stuff.   Lawyers know how to do this.

I have read every interview text on the Department of State website, particularly the questions with which Secstate Clinton was peppered by journalists, students and tribal leaders.  (Whoever was responsible for the recordings that yielded so many “inaudibles”  should be fired!).  These were good discussions, and I find it regrettable that the American press so frequently framed the story so as to deserve a headline like this: “Clinton Suffers Barbs and Returns Jabs on Pakistan Trip.”  Here is more of such misrepresentation:

She submitted [itals mine] to four round-table interviews...in which Pakistan’s leading journalists took their best shots at her, and she even counterpunched once or twice.  By the time she left...she appeared to have fought Pakistan’s fourth estate to a draw.

What’s offensive about such a description?  It’s inaccurate.  It’s inappropriate.  What was going on was more like the first phase of a negotiation.  Everything gets laid on the table.  The fears.  The resentments.  The angers.  The misunderstandings.  The disappointments.  Unless you get through that stage, you can never progress to anything like productive cooperation. 

The Dangerous Business of Female Education

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

I mentioned the International Islamic University in Islamabad yesterday.  That’s where the latest suicide bombings in Pakistan took place.  Six not five persons were killed.  Three were girls and not by coincidence.  This was not one of those "senseless" incidents.  Here's an interesting Pakistani take on the bombings.

The best way to get an idea of the ambiance at the IIU is to take a look at the university’s website.  Women attend, but it's not really a co-educational institution.  It’s a highly segregated place.  Do a little browsing on the site, and soon you will realize that you are being bombarded with references to “the female wing”  of the IIU.  Naturally there are no references to the “male wing.”  If you find this as irritating as I do, think of similar practices in our own society. For instance, it is quite “normal” for  female high school athletes to be called by the hideous term of, say, the “Elkettes,” while the real teams, the male teams, are always the “Elks,” the nickname that would  apply to the school taken as a whole.

In pictures of classes and activities at IIU, you will note that most of the female students are very heavily veiled, even with no male present (unless the eye of the camera counts).  Only at the highest administrative level is an occasional female faculty member or dean represented with face fully revealed, often in the context of receiving foreign visitors, eg. pandering to the outside world.  

Otherwise the IIU world is male male male.  Male students.  Male teachers.  Male administrators.  Not so different from the way it used to be, not so many decades ago, in  many contexts in the West, for that matter.  Only recently have female faces turned up regularly in leadership roles or even as a good percentage of street crowds.  Re this, I’m going to see that both my sons get copies of the new book by Gail Collins: When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present.  Being a woman was pretty horrible when I was a kid—and lots of us vowed we’d change things or die trying.  Fortunately, the latter wasn’t needed in our case, but Pakistani girls who want an education and a professional life may be targeted by those who fear social change.    And their schools certainly aren't safe, not even the schools for primary students.

All the above notwithstanding, there is much to be said for the IIU as a way to provide a higher education for girls who would never otherwise be able to obtain a college degree.  As the website photos prove,  there's nothing like equality between the sexes here and the curriculum certainly does not offer anything close to a liberal education, but IIU does signify a step in the right direction.   Above all, the young women who graduate will be able to read the Koran for themselves and do some thinking of their own, which is unlikely to please the village mullahs who accustomed to quoting convenient

Looks Like We’ve Given Up

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

For decades now the US has been closing its cultural centers and trying to whip up enthusiasiam for cheap substitutes which surveys have shown to be ineffectual.  The rationale for the cost cutting jag?  That old end of history canard.  Once the Cold War was over, there’d be no need to promote the American brand.  We’d won.  The future was us—the U.S.

The Greeks were so right about the need for self-knowledge and the dangers of hubris.  Our joy and relief when the Berlin Wall came down were so extreme that we thought the U.S. would be on top for ever—well, there were some level headed sorts who considered such thinking to be absurd, but they were pooh-poohed.  We cut back on our public diplomacy programs, and within ten years our public diplomacy agency went poof!  Gone.  In all fairness, I need to add that the Brits were cutting back on British Council expenditures, the French were less generous to their Alliance Française operations and the Germans were closing Goethe Centers, too.  The West, in general, was pretty smug about winning the Cold War and was determined to reap financial dividends.

But history, as it will, moved on.  Islam exploded, Russia refused to play the role of deferential poor provincial cousin, and if the 20st century was the American century, the competition for which country will dominate the 21st century seems to be constrained only by the never properly appreciated or understood efforts of India to deny the honor to the Chinese.  However, the Chinese are looking so good that the Russians, evidently, have decided to follow the Sino one-party-capitalism model to prosperity.