The Obama agenda - II

Extremism cannot be dealt with military power alone, Obama stated for his number one issue in his Cairo speech, which is "why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced."
Few in Pakistan, in government or indeed out of government, would find fault with this logic. Obama did not use the word terrorism, acknowledged that the loss in terms of US lives and the consequent political cost of staying in Afghanistan and Iraq were high, but added that "in spite of the costs involved American resolve will not weaken." He also admitted that 9/11 'led us to act contrary to our ideals,' again an acknowledgement of the use of torture by US forces in which the Europeans, due to rendition, as well Musharraf's government which handed over Pakistanis to the US in return for cash, were fully complicit.
The Zardari government would have us believe that this policy was forged after consultations between the two. If this were indeed so it is doubtful if Obama would have appointed Richard Holbrooke as the Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) envoy, much opposed by the Pakistan government, or, indeed, imposed oversight on the way the government will spend US assistance in future.
In contrast one can clearly see US influence over our domestic policy: the operation in Swat valley as well as Waziristan has silenced US demand of 'do more' and has generated significant assistance for the IDPs and the promise of more reflecting full support. Brokering a truce between the PPP and the PML (N) appears to be a part of Holbrooke's terms of reference as he visits senior government officials, understandably, but also meets with the PML (N) leadership whenever he visits the country.
He also met with Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry during his recent visit raising intense speculation in the country about what was discussed: the US brokered National Reconciliation Ordinance or the farm houses by Musharraf and his cronies? Denials in this country rarely quell speculation.
The US President also referred to the rights and responsibilities of nuclear states: it is their right to harness cheap nuclear energy and it is their responsibility not to generate an arms race in the region.
On the eve of the Iranian New Year, 20 March 2009, Obama, in marked contrast to the Bush years, and much to the chagrin of Israel that may well have been responsible for fuelling Bush paranoia against the Muslim world in general and Iran in particular, offered a conciliatory message: "We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek, instead, engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."
Iran toned down its verbal attacks against the US as a consequence and urged the US to match its words with deeds. In his Cairo speech he said "rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward."
Nuclear power for peaceful energy is not an issue he added, nuclear power to make bombs will fuel an arms race in the Middle East which is not acceptable to the US as it "could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path." But what got him ovation is "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons."
Critics would no doubt argue that these sentiments are not going to change the status quo either with respect to nuclear capability of Western countries or indeed with respect to Israel and the Middle East.
President Zardari's insistence on democracy dividend was ably dealt with President Obama, though one doubts if he was specifically referring to the Pakistani president: "there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others...you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients elections alone do not make true democracy."
If one takes this statement in conjunction with Richard Holbrooke's statement that President Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif have an agreement on the seventeenth amendment then the picture that emerges is clear: the US is engaged in the implementation of democracy in this country.
However some Pakistanis see little difference between the two US administrations (Bush versus Obama) with respect to the Taliban and particularly the Taliban in Pakistan controlled territory; but it is relevant to understand the mindset of the new administration with respect to South Asia to be better able to try to shape it.
Obama clearly stated a couple of days before his election victory that Kashmir was "obviously a potential tar pit diplomatically." Obama had also referred to mediating on Kashmir to ensure that the Pakistan army is not diverted by concerns over the eastern border and thereby focuses attention on eliminating the Taliban. This offer was later withdrawn by Holbrooke, which implies that our government failed to follow up on the sentiments expressed by the President and drive its point home on a diplomatic front.
Physical occupation of the White House changed some of Obama's perceptions. Those who may argue that the Indian lobby or any other lobby was responsible for a change in perception must look at the macro picture: that Obama has in all probability resisted considerably much greater pressure from the Israelis with respect to his no settlement policy, including natural growth, than India can ever hope to place on the US.
Thus the change in perspective has to be based on the briefing Obama received after his election victory. These briefings led him to not only (i) deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan in conjunction, an approach slavishly followed by the Europeans, but also (ii) to insist on do more with allegations against the ISI and the army's intent to deal with the Taliban till the recent army operation in Swat (iii) to continue with the drone attacks; and (iv) to no longer act as mediator on Kashmir.
Religious freedom and women's rights are issues that are unlikely to be challenged by anyone publicly though implementation of the policies in this regard may continue to be poor in Muslim countries in general, including Pakistan, and in Arab countries in particular. And finally the US President referred to economic development and opportunity as the seventh issue.
He promised to invest in education abroad, science and technology. He ended his speech with what was later argued by many an analyst: "I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the fire of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilisations doomed to clash.
Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur...we have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning." Heady words indeed and at the risk of being labelled as another proponent of Obama mania I unhesitatingly say I believe I have the courage to make a new beginning.