America’s Responsibility

We will all find out soon enough.
It could either be good, bad, or extremely ugly.

Ras

America does have certain responsibilties as a world power - but it takes decades before the rise of the next generation of leadership with a more enligtened view of the world to make things happen.... Domestic US policies of racial apartheied ended almost a century after the Civil war.... The rights of the dispossed Native Americans were being recognized in the 70`s and 80`s - more han a century after anhilating the native American civilization.....

The Current leadership in the US policy making bodies are veterans of the cold war - and I am not referring to George ``Special Child`` Bush... consequently US policies reflect the same confrontational perspective.... The next two decades should bring about a more humane face to US international policy.....

In this regard - European policy is far more pragmatic and

While the author chastizes the US for a more balanced policy - it absolves all the `` Third world`` and their third rate leadership of any responsibility for the future of our planet.

The emerging economies of ASia also require a strong dose of realism that should counteract the strong surge of rabid nationalism in India and China.... The current generation of ``nutcases`` have never expereienced war and yet clamor for a nuclear showdown - actually believeing that they will win a nuclear confrontation. In retrospect US fiscal and foreign policies should be directed at defanging these regional upstarts of their nuclear arsenals while concurrently ``civilizing`` them with monetary and trade incentives....

Many of thes nation states are accidents of colonialism.... and contain multi-ethnic populations whose aspirations are repressed by brutal fascist regionalism. Both China and India are subcontinents that need to be pared down to nation states to accelerate both local development and retard regional idelogical ambitions... with fascism on the rise both of these countries ( much like the Second Reich) - regional ambitions could severerly impede global trade and consequently the interests of Western civilization.

The only difference between the US and other countries is that the US is more powerful, so the consequences of its actions are felt acutely by others, while the consequences of others` actions are not easily felt by it.

The only thing that has changed since Sept 11, in some ways, is public perception within the US. America is not more hated than it was before. It has just been forced to become aware of this hatred. And while this hatred is not a good thing, perhaps the awareness is.

Godot,.

``To use an analogy, America must play the role of a wise and mature parent to its squabbling children. America, in short, must be perceived as fair in its actions by the world.``

As far as your article is concerned, the above is not an anology, that is the central theme of the article, apreoccupation with a uniquely paki confusion that people and countries are similar in patterns of behaviour. This is vcharecterised by the numerous articles and assertions by pakistanis of every hue that china is a reliable friend, us abandoned them etc.

The entire notion of fairness in the actions of countries should be uniquely islamic and could stem from the notion of brother hood, ummah, and the idea that all muslims conditioned by the book will act in unison like automatums. The early training should be in the madrassas, where they rock and tune to the same words like automatums and then serch the world ove as true jihadists, searching for kafirs. Learn from chowk, others dont have this notion of ummah and tuning with tyhe book, that contains all that one has to know.

GODOT,

This should make you happy, the americans are fair, at least they dont make any distinction in news between a dog and afghans. From jang of today

Buddy`s death

Amjad Marwat

We all regret the death of Clinton`s dog Buddy and want the American government to know that we equally share the grief of this news, as we are united against terrorism. We will also like to thank BBC to have broadcasted this important news along with other news like the death of 100 Afghans in Afghanistan. Matter should be immediately inspected and terrorists, which can be Osama, behind this act of genocide should be brought to justice.

Islamabad

Dear Godot,

I`m not a political creature, nor one of common sense, so perhaps you or someone out there could answer this, perhaps daft, question:

The impression I got from your article was that other countries are dragging America into conflicts. Why would a nation let itself be dragged into other peoples` problems if it`s interests were not being served, i.e. it was getting something out of it. Otherwise, wouldn`t a country let other people sort out their own arguments.

Thank you and take care.

Umer Murtaza

While reminding america of its responsibility kindly also remind the so called `Islamic states` not to fill the hearts & mind of kids with poison in the madrissa`s. where all except muslims are kufrs and zalims.

People from other religions are also at the receiving end of American double standards, but they dont go about exploding bombs, killing, mudering.

What is so special about the land, air and water of Islamic nations that their citizens go bersek every now and then. It is high time, the Islamic states set their house in order and not blame others for their misfortune and the pounding they receive every now and then. Surely, the americans did not create the Lashkar;s, jaish`s, etc etc.

Godot,

Interesting piece. How should America respond to jihadis who actively plan attacks against America? How should America respond to Muslims who live in America, yet are extremely critical and uninvested in being citizens of America because they disagree with the plurality, diversity and tolerance most of America tries to work towards?

Godot

An excellent piece, and very pertinent. Nevertheless, I think yo have left out a crucial element.

Yes of course America is not seem as fair and impartial - worst still, it is not only the world that is immature, so is American leadership.

If America or any other aspirant to global leadership is to be successful, they must we seen as partners and not as the polarizing partisans that they are at present.

Of all the places in the world that America is seen as unfair and partisan, the Muslim world would come to mind. Not in a simple Muslim country is America seem as a partner to the Muslims - indeed even inside America, Muslim citizens remain marginalized.

contributions by Muslim organizations to politicians are returned with ``thanks, but no thanks``, as soon as other ethnic/religious groups object to such contributions and what may be demanded in return.

It is not only Muslims who have to engage in introspection, to reevaluate their positions but also intellectuals in America - Leadership in Muslim countires may well act to put a lid on ``terrorist`` activity - but unless America comes to the decision that it`s security is linked to that of others and therefore a need to establish a broad partnership with the myriad of forces within Islamia - the serious problem will persist.

You can`t please all the people all the time. Someone will always be pissed. Thats the nature of things.

Peace.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The author says . . . ````Being the most powerful nation and as a lone superpower, America cannot ignore the world. That America, because of its might, is the undisputed leader of the world cannot be argued. ````

Do you think Hitler and his Germans felt the same way . . . till when the world suddenly started attacking them for taking on the Jews?

Sometimes, I feel, maybe the story of Atahualpa and what happened to his killer, the Pizzarros, needs to be repeated to the Americans.

This is a very interesting question. Britain in hey day of its coloninal power was never hated so much by the common people in its colonies. Surprisingly, older generation of Indian and Pakistanis fondly talk about British rule in the subcontinent. In my opinion there are a few reasons for this hatred against the USA as follows:

1. American policies are based on short term vision and quick fixes. They never think about the long term impact. Recent example is Afghanistan. After the demise of USSR, Americans packed up and went home leaving local war lords to fight each other. They could not care less about what happens to common people.

2. American officials always cultivate and mix with the elite of the society. The elite could be military, bureaucracy, industrialists or feudal lords. They have so far not communicated with common people or devised programs that positively impact common people of any country.

3.National interest is considered paramount by Americans. However, in a global economy the interests of common people all over the World are also important. As a sole super power, America should look into the common interests of the whole World.

Having said this, I do not think America will change. America is a very dynemic country. Any person or corporation that can not compete in changing circumstances goes out of the loop.

What other countries can do about it? I believe that immigrants of various countries can play a role in impacting the policies of this country. The successful countries have a strong lobby here and get the attention based on their efforts.

Poor countries do not have any lobby, so nobody listens to them.

sorry to hijack this article. what do

chowkwallas think of the latest gaffe from

Bush?

``We are working hard to convince both the

Indians and the Pakis there`s a way to deal

with their problems without going to war.``

some say that ``pakis`` is an ``acceptable``

abbreviation in the US...being from Europe, i

wouldn`t know (or agree). any comments?

Iran fills a void left by Pakistan`s decline

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/008/nation/Iran_fills_a_void_left_by_Pakistan_s_decline+.shtml

By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 1/8/2002

SLAMABAD, Pakistan - Long the regional heavyweight, Pakistan now finds its role in Afghanistan has all but vanished, dealing a blow to the nation`s influence in southwestern Asia and leaving an opening for rivals like Iran, diplomats and officials say.

Iran is seeking to capitalize on the dramatic shift in Pakistan`s fortunes with moves to tie its economy more closely to Afghanistan, according to officials here and in Washington. Pakistan`s longtime rival is opening links to Afghanistan by air and road, the officials said.

``There has been a complete flip-flop on who was the major player, and it has gone from Pakistan to Iran,`` a Western diplomat in Islamabad said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``The Iranians are good about not gloating over that fact.``

Iran`s entry into the void shows both the extensive diplomatic realignment in the region since Sept. 11 and how far Washington has come in its perceptions about Iran, a state it still lists as supporting terrorism. Moreover, diplomats said, it underscores how far Iran itself has come in moderating its policies and playing a more assertive international role.

The decline of Pakistani influence here is remarkable, given the formidable authority Islamabad wielded in the US-backed fight against Soviet troops in the 1980s and the far-reaching support it provided the Taliban during its rise to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Today, Pakistan`s once-extensive intelligence network in Afghanistan has gone the way of its Taliban allies. In Kabul, it faces an Afghan government with a still-vivid memory of Pakistan`s support for the Taliban and consequently an intense distaste for any hint of Pakistani meddling.

Mushahid Hussain, a member of Pakistan`s Parliament and a former government minister, said that in his nation`s pursuit of `` this flawed policy to install a friendly government in Kabul, we promoted favorites, we ditched friends, we suddenly had a romance with the Taliban.

``Of course after Sept. 11, we realized that our pro-Taliban policy was buried in the wreckage of the World Trade Center.``

Iran played a more extensive role than has generally been acknowledged in reaching the agreement in Bonn last month that made possible the provisional government in Kabul, the diplomat said. Tehran has also taken on a higher profile inside the war-shattered country by providing aid, including the funding of teacher salaries in Kabul for the next six months.

In a farther-reaching effort, Tehran has sought to bolster its links by road from Mashhad in western Iran to Herat, an Afghan border city with longstanding links to Iran. Iranian officials have urged the United Nations to make more use of the Iranian port of Chabahar on the Arabian Sea to ship aid into southwestern Afghanistan, and an Iranian diplomat in Islamabad said that direct flights would begin ``in the near future`` from Tehran to Kabul.

``They`re not missing a beat,`` said the Western diplomat.

He and other diplomats agreed that the Iranians appear to be a force for stability in Afghanistan, so US officials have so far raised no objection to their growing role.

``It`s obviously something we`re going to keep an eye on, but it`s not causing alarm to the extent that we`re trying to stop it,`` a State Department official said.

Pakistan`s diplomatic retreat from Afghanistan is occurring as the nation is losing ground in other ways.

For example, Washington is not only cooperating more with Iran, but is also diluting its reliance on Pakistan by forging closer ties to nations in the region such as Uzbekistan and, of course, Afghanistan itself. And the United States is reshaping the situation on the ground by increasing its military presence in the region, with Russia`s blessing.

Pakistan is also stinging - and presumably has lost ground in the region, at least for the time being - as a result of its ongoing military confrontation with India.

Although the Bush administration has pressured both sides to avoid war, the most intense efforts have clearly been made in Islamabad, which has reacted with unprecedented crackdowns on the Islamic militants it had been supporting. The result has been to make Pakistan seem less of a force, particularly compared with its archrival, India, which has offered no apparent concessions.

Some analysts say that next to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Pakistan has lost the most as a result of the US campaign.

``Everything seems to have boomeranged against Pakistan, both in the east and in the west,`` said Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan`s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

It is hard to overstate the extent of Pakistan`s loss of influence, especially within Afghanistan.

After the Soviet invasion in 1979, Pakistan had treated its neighbor to the west as its strategic backyard, shepherding the US-funded resistance by the mujahideen that eventually led to a Soviet withdrawal a decade later.

But it was under the Taliban that Pakistan enjoyed its greatest influence.

From 1994 on, Pakistani intelligence fostered the Taliban as a military client, providing help in recruitment and training, logistics, money, weapons, and even military intervention on the Taliban`s behalf.

Hundreds of Pakistani volunteers, many fired by religious fervor, populated the Taliban`s ranks. And the religious militia drew on Pakistan`s religious parties, groups that grew in prominence during the 1990s, for financial and ideological backing. In 1997, Pakistan led the way in granting diplomatic recognition to the Taliban.

``If you look at Afghanistan, the Taliban regime was probably the most friendly to Pakistan in the last 100 years,`` said Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, a Pakistani think tank.

That very success with the Taliban, analysts said, is the reason the retreat has been so sweeping: Pakistan invested so much in the Taliban that it was left with virtually nothing to show once the Taliban disintegrated before the American military onslaught.

Diplomats and former officials said Pakistani policy is in shambles, reeling from the loss of influence in Afghanistan and with no realistic prospect of exerting any.

Pakistan has yet to open an embassy in Kabul, though a Foreign Ministry spokesman said that would occur ``sooner rather than later.``

``Where does Pakistan stand after 25 years of making sacrifices for Afghanistan?`` said Gul. ``Pakistan has no relevance as of now. It has completely pulled out.``

Gul, who supported Pakistan`s policy of fostering the Taliban, blames the US government. Washington broke promises to keep the Northern Alliance from taking power, he said. ``Pakistan was used as a pawn, not as a partner by the Americans.``

But other analysts here put the blame squarely on Pakistan, part of an assessment of policy here that some compare to US discussions over the victory of communists in China in 1949.

``Pakistan`s policy toward Afghanistan was one vast failure,`` said Hussain.

``Judge by the results. Ultimately what did it produce? It didn`t produce stability for the region, for Pakistan, or for Afghanistan.``

For now, Pakistani officials say they will support UN efforts to form a government in Kabul that represents Afghanistan`s mosaic of ethnic and religious groups. That in itself is new, said one senior Pakistani official.

``In the past, there were preferences for certain people and certain parties,`` the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``That has proved to be a disaster.``

But given Pakistan`s ties of language, culture, and ethnicity, the official predicted that its influence would once again grow in Afghanistan.

``Whatever government ultimately emerges in Afghanistan will have to deal with Pakistan,`` he said. ``We are not worried about it.``

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 1/8/2002.

Godot sahib: Why do we flop like chicken with heads cut off (to use mullah omar`s inspiring words), running from pillar (``Government``, to fix community problems) to post (``Amreeka``, to fix world problems) to dreamworld(``Allah``, to fix all problems)?