This article appeared in The Mark on August 23, 2010
One of the reasons the response to the floods in Pakistan has been so half-hearted is the perception of the country as a hub for terrorism.UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the flooding in Pakistan the worst natural disaster in the history of the UN, stating that “waves of flood must be met with waves of support from the world.” But his appeal is not being heeded. Astoundingly little humanitarian aid is flowing into the country.
The world moved quickly when an earthquake devastated Haiti earlier this year, as it had done after the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Following the overwhelming support for the survivors of the Asian Tsunami of 2004 there was talk of a new international civil society. That society is largely motionless now. What explains the geographic and temporal gulf in terms of the global response to this tragedy?
One of the reasons the response to the floods in Pakistan has been so half-hearted is the perception of the country as a hub for terrorism.UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the flooding in Pakistan the worst natural disaster in the history of the UN, stating that “waves of flood must be met with waves of support from the world.” But his appeal is not being heeded. Astoundingly little humanitarian aid is flowing into the country.
The world moved quickly when an earthquake devastated Haiti earlier this year, as it had done after the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Following the overwhelming support for the survivors of the Asian Tsunami of 2004 there was talk of a new international civil society. That society is largely motionless now. What explains the geographic and temporal gulf in terms of the global response to this tragedy?
Perhaps one reason is the unsettling view of Pakistan the international media has come to portray. Indeed, Elizabeth Byrs, a spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said, “We note often an image deficit with regards to Pakistan among western public opinion.” The “image deficit” stems largely from the perception of Pakistan as a hub of regional and even global terrorism, and from its support for the Taliban.
Pakistan’s foreign policy over the last two decades – from installing the Taliban in Afghanistan to the lunacy of organizing militias on Pakistani soil to extend “jihad” into Indian-controlled Kashmir and beyond – has had an alienating effect in most countries. Though NATO considers Pakistan an ally, citizens of NATO states have also imbibed a steady diet of unflattering rhetoric. Canada has dubbed it “the most dangerous country in the world,” Britain accuses it of “exporting terror,” and the U.S. constantly hectors it to “do more” to fight terrorism. All have blamed Pakistan – with ample justification – for supporting the Afghan insurgency.
Westerners are also wary of an involuntary but steady export of militancy to Europe and North American. Pakistani connections crop up again and again, from the British subway bombers, to Canada’s “Toronto 18”, to Faisal Shahzad who recently attempted to bomb Times Square in New York. The lacklustre response to Pakistan’s unfolding tragedy is perhaps its wages of sin.
But none of this is just cause for western governments and peoples to turn away from Pakistan. Fundamentally, Pakistanis belong within the circle of human solidarity. This alone is reason enough for generosity towards them. Moreover, Pakistani citizens have little say in their country’s policy orientations. The more than 20 million displaced by the floods and the countless more who will sink deeper into destitution in the years to come are scarcely responsible for Pakistani policy-making. Holding them so is little more than a crude form of collective punishment.
Further, the West has reaped benefits from Pakistan’s dangerous policy follies. In the 1980s, Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan resulted in the only military defeat ever inflicted on the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, Pakistan’s propping up of a “stabilizing” Taliban regime was possible only through tacit American support and encouragement. And even now, in the new millennium, NATO continues to exploit Pakistan’s Taliban connection to open up negotiation channels, even as they condemn the country for its support of “terror.”
Yes, the Pakistani state and its managers, mostly military but also civilian, have followed destructive foreign policies. The resulting blowback, from sectarian violence to an exploding Islamist insurgency, is the penance borne by many Pakistanis every day. But the West has also happily connived with them, or at least found a way to turn a profit from a modus Vivendi. To begrudge Pakistan much needed assistance for these reasons is to read history hypocritically, with only one eye open.
Unlike some other Muslim countries, the people of Pakistan have consistently marginalized extremists at the polls. Religious parties have yet to better the combined 14 per cent of the popular vote they received back in 1970. Yet in the western media, Pakistanis are stereotyped as bomb-laden fanatics. Conversely, Pakistanis have come to view westerners as only interested in their own narrow geopolitical agendas, oblivious to the sacrifices or suffering of the Pakistani people. It would be a tragedy indeed if one stereotype made the other a reality.
Pakistan’s foreign policy over the last two decades – from installing the Taliban in Afghanistan to the lunacy of organizing militias on Pakistani soil to extend “jihad” into Indian-controlled Kashmir and beyond – has had an alienating effect in most countries. Though NATO considers Pakistan an ally, citizens of NATO states have also imbibed a steady diet of unflattering rhetoric. Canada has dubbed it “the most dangerous country in the world,” Britain accuses it of “exporting terror,” and the U.S. constantly hectors it to “do more” to fight terrorism. All have blamed Pakistan – with ample justification – for supporting the Afghan insurgency.
Westerners are also wary of an involuntary but steady export of militancy to Europe and North American. Pakistani connections crop up again and again, from the British subway bombers, to Canada’s “Toronto 18”, to Faisal Shahzad who recently attempted to bomb Times Square in New York. The lacklustre response to Pakistan’s unfolding tragedy is perhaps its wages of sin.
But none of this is just cause for western governments and peoples to turn away from Pakistan. Fundamentally, Pakistanis belong within the circle of human solidarity. This alone is reason enough for generosity towards them. Moreover, Pakistani citizens have little say in their country’s policy orientations. The more than 20 million displaced by the floods and the countless more who will sink deeper into destitution in the years to come are scarcely responsible for Pakistani policy-making. Holding them so is little more than a crude form of collective punishment.
Further, the West has reaped benefits from Pakistan’s dangerous policy follies. In the 1980s, Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan resulted in the only military defeat ever inflicted on the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, Pakistan’s propping up of a “stabilizing” Taliban regime was possible only through tacit American support and encouragement. And even now, in the new millennium, NATO continues to exploit Pakistan’s Taliban connection to open up negotiation channels, even as they condemn the country for its support of “terror.”
Yes, the Pakistani state and its managers, mostly military but also civilian, have followed destructive foreign policies. The resulting blowback, from sectarian violence to an exploding Islamist insurgency, is the penance borne by many Pakistanis every day. But the West has also happily connived with them, or at least found a way to turn a profit from a modus Vivendi. To begrudge Pakistan much needed assistance for these reasons is to read history hypocritically, with only one eye open.
Unlike some other Muslim countries, the people of Pakistan have consistently marginalized extremists at the polls. Religious parties have yet to better the combined 14 per cent of the popular vote they received back in 1970. Yet in the western media, Pakistanis are stereotyped as bomb-laden fanatics. Conversely, Pakistanis have come to view westerners as only interested in their own narrow geopolitical agendas, oblivious to the sacrifices or suffering of the Pakistani people. It would be a tragedy indeed if one stereotype made the other a reality.
RSS Feed