Opinion
When Does History Begin?
For the people who rule the roost in Washington, history begins the day they wish to choose. But the least we can do, when deliberating over the present state of things in Pakistan, is not follow Washington.
On 9/11, the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was in Washington. The next day he met with the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, According to Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's ambassador at the time and a witness to the meeting, 'Armitage started out by saying: "This is a grave moment. History begins today for the United States. We're asking all our friends--you're not the only country we're speaking to--we're asking people whether they're with us or against us."'

What struck me more forcefully when I first read that account last August was Armitage's reference to history: 'History begins today for the United States.' In fact, as I recall, he reiterated that observation on a TV show more recently. Somewhat boastfully he asserted that when the Pakistani visitor made some demurring sounds and referred to the prior US involvement in Afghanistan, he cut him short by saying, 'History begins for us today.'

I was reminded of that meeting this week, when I came across Jonathan Schell's excellent commentary, which begins with his version of that incident and uses for its title Armitage's other dictum: 'Are you with us, or against us?'

I don't think Armitage, a second-tier functionary, was expressing merely an individual's hubris. His remark, I'm convinced, was indicative of a more prevalent sickness. For the people who rule the roost in Washington, history does begin the day they wish to choose. Presently, they dictate that Iran's history with the United States must begin in 1979, and not in 1953 or earlier; that Iraq's history must begin with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and not when the United States, Saudi Arabia and indeed Kuwait outsourced to him their preemptive strike against Iran; and that Afghanistan's history should likewise begin from the day we launched an attack against the Taliban, and none should dare bring up--as the hapless Pakistani spook tried--the refugee camps where, for years, the United States directly helped the Saudis to preach sectarian Islam and bankroll foreign mujahideen.

As we deliberate here in Chicago over the present state of things in Pakistan, the least we can do is not follow Washington.

Pakistan came into existence in 1947, simultaneous with the start of the new global power struggle, known as the Cold War. It was 'cold,' of course, only for the two chief protagonists, who fought devastatingly 'hot' wars away from their homelands, and used as proxies places like Congo and Vietnam. The same Cold War also cruelly distorted the future for a great many other emerging nations, including Pakistan.

Pakistan had initially tried to win American assistance in two forms: direct developmental aid, civil and military, and diplomatic support against India. Its first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan toured the United States in 1950 at the invitation of President Truman, and the visit was seen by the Pakistanis as a triumph. But Washington was still hopeful of winning over Nehru and India, a bigger catch. Consequently, Pakistan received modest financial and military aid, but no diplomatic support against India.

So far I was factual. Now I must enter the twilight zone of Conspiracy Theory. By early 1951, when it became clear that the United States was not forthcoming with the kind of support that Pakistan desired--and what India had started getting from the USSR--Liaquat Ali began making some public noises that Washington didn't like. He even made plans for a trip to the USSR. A few months later, in a public meeting at Rawalpindi, Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated. Moments later, the killer was also gunned down by the police officer on special duty. When, in due course a senior investigative officer was appointed to make an inquiry, he too perished, together with all his files, when his plane crashed and burned.

I now return to the factual. Liaquat Ali Khan was killed on October 16, 1951. [Please see update, Note #2 -- Ed.] Four days earlier, his finance minister, Ghulam Muhammad, had resigned from the cabinet for ostensible reasons of health. On October 18, however, the same Ghulam Muhammad became Pakistan's third Governor General. Here it is important to note that it was a post that was first held by Pakistan's founder, M. A. Jinnah, and thus had been the real seat of power till 1949. One of Liaquat Ali's major successes had been to bring that power back to where it should have belonged in the first place, namely with the nation's legislative assembly and its elected Prime Minister. Now it went back to the Governor General House.

I had thought that the United States' direct dealings with the Pakistani army in general and its intelligence section in particular began after the 1951 coup. But, according to Seymour Hersh in a 1993 article in the New Yorker that I found only this week, they had started in 1950. Hersh writes:

'As early as 1950, the Pakistani government had effectively ceded remote areas of its northern provinces to the Central Intelligence Agency and to the National Security Agency--the larger and still more secretive group that ... is responsible for communications intelligence. It was from northern Pakistan that the N.S.A. eavesdropped on the Soviet nuclear facilities in Kazakhstan.'

Ghulam Muhammad ruled Pakistan by diktat, dismissing his first Prime Minister and appointing instead a man, who was not even a legislator but only Pakistan's ambassador in Washington. And when Ghulam Muhammad actually became physically disabled in the extreme, he handed over power in 1955 not to a politician but to a general: Gen. Iskandar Mirza. During the four years of his dictatorial rule, hand in hand with the Pakistani army and Washington, Ghulam Muhammad received the usual rewards. Time magazine is reported to have described him as the 'Reluctant Dictator'. It's also on record that in 1954, the United States increased its military support to Pakistan from 26 million to 105 million.

I must emphasize here that in his expropriation of every possible constitutional authority, Ghulam Muhammad was fully supported by Pakistan's Supreme Court, in particular by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir. Ghulam Mohammad's 'Ordinance for Emergency Powers,' and Munir's 1954 opinion that sovereignty in Pakistan resided with the Governor General and not the Legislative Assembly, are even today two of the supports of the constitutional stance taken by the present General/President. At a time when the New York Times and the bosses in Washington are showing an unusual congruency of thought in declaring Benazir Bhutto to be the next champion of democracy in Pakistan, it might be useful to remember that 50 or so years ago it was not the Pakistani army that forcibly grabbed control of Pakistan's politics. It happened the other way around: a majority of Pakistani politicians and judges willingly handed over power to the army. And the destruction of democracy in Pakistan was approved and rewarded by Washington at every stage.

In 1954–55, the United States expanded its containment of the USSR by establishing two new treaty organizations on the pattern of NATO. Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO, and South East Asian Treaty Organization, or SEATO. CENTO consisted of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. Again, we must recall that in 1953 the United States had toppled Iran's elected government, and replaced it with the Shah, while Iraq--created and adorned with a non-Iraqi king by Lawrence of Arabia, was de facto still ruled from London. Significantly, Pakistan was the only Asian country that was a member of both CENTO and SEATO.

In 1957, when U-2, America's most valuable spy plane was commissioned, one of its two overseas bases was set up in Pakistan, at Peshawar, from where it conducted aerial surveillance of the USSR. This cooperation between the United States and Pakistan remained hidden from the world until 1960, when the Russians managed to shoot down one of the planes, and put on trial its pilot, Francis Gary Powers. Meanwhile, General Iskandar Mirza, after appointing four Prime Ministers in his two years, had handed over Pakistan to his good friend General Muhammad Ayub Khan, and retired to live in Iran as a guest of the Shah.

Ayub Khan ruled Pakistan from 1958 to 1969, using various constitutional guises or devices. And though Ayub, after the 1965 war with India in which the United States again disappointed Pakistan's expectations, turned to China for military equipment, the clandestine ties with the United States were not affected, and the overt aid grants continued as before. Pakistan's close ties with China later became valuable to the United States, when the next General/President, Yahya Khan facilitated Henry Kissinger's secret trip to China, which took place in July 1971, at the height of Yahya's military oppression of Pakistan's Bengali citizens. [1] Incidentally, that was also the time when many Islamists, Bengali and non-Bengali, lent support to the army, gaining entry into its confidence. That first foothold grew firmer and extensive when radicalized POWs returned from India grew more disillusioned with the secular politicians. When Zia-ul Haq grabbed power in 1977, he was not only an army man but also, in equal measure, an Islamist.

I stop my historical narrative here. Let me conclude by saying that the 'menace du jour' in those days was Communism. Today, it is Global Terror. And only a fool or an angel can predict what length 'Washington, Inc.'--Republican or Democrat--would go to in the new crusade. As we talk, our man in Islamabad is John D. Negroponte. Long before becoming the first Director of National Intelligence for President Bush in 2005, Negroponte had been our man in Honduras from 1981 to 1985. The entries on him in Wikipedia and SourceWatch are worth a read. The following brief quotation from the first, I feel, may predict the course of future events better than anything.

'In 1995, The Baltimore Sun published an extensive investigation of U.S. activities in Honduras. Speaking of Negroponte and other senior U.S. officials, an ex-Honduran congressman . . . was quoted as saying: "Their attitude was one of tolerance and silence. They needed Honduras to loan its territory more than they were concerned about innocent people being killed."

For their cooperation with the US, the Honduran government had its military aid increased from $4m in 1981 to $77m in 1985.


C. M. Naim is Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago. He made the above remarks at a roundtable on Pakistan at the University of Chicago, on Nov 17th 2007

Notes:

1. The documents concerning that secret trip were declassified in 2002 and provide fascinating reading, in particular document 3.

2. Update: A friend expressed surprise at my precise dates, which made me go back to the internet and our library. I was mistaken when I claimed that Ghulam Muhammad had resigned on Oct. 12, 1951. It seems that by that date, Liaquat Ali Khan had decided to dismiss Ghulam Muhammad from his cabinet. The ‘fig-leaf’ offered was: his resignation due to ill health, and a posting to Washington as Pakistan’s Ambassador for the same reason. When the offer was broached to Ghulam Muhammad, his response was something to the effect: ‘over my dead body.’ Liaquat Ali Khan was killed on the 16th, and the same evening Ghulam Muhammad became the Governor General, though he was sworn in office on the 19th. I also found that the police officer who had so promptly killed the assassin was also killed in 1960. The three killings and the air crash still remain unexplained.

 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Nov 23, 2007 12:00 AM
10
Recently , there was a statement , I just cannot remember where like this.

" It is just like telling AlCapone to run the FBI" .

Hope the readers will find out to whom this is meant for.
gajanan
Sydney, Australia
Nov 21, 2007 12:00 AM
9
Parbat writes:

>> Naim and you share one thing: an incapacity to state anything plainly, an incurable tendency toward setting out nebulous ideas in dense, convoluted prose marred by errors of syntax.

So, you had a hard time reading my post? Did I translate your exemplary demonstration of crisp ideas in concise and direct prose unmarred “by errors of syntax”?

>>Stick to one-liners…They are what you excel in.

How about getting under your skin? I am even better at that!

>>You should set up a business in Windbaggery with Naim..

I haven’t the courage to compete with your flatulence MNC.
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Nov 21, 2007 12:00 AM
8
Augustus AAA/ Old Mac:

Naim and you share one thing: an incapacity to state anything plainly, an incurable tendency toward setting out nebulous ideas in dense, convoluted prose marred by errors of syntax.

Stick to one-liners, Old Chimp ! They are what you excel in.

You should set up a business in Windbaggery with Naim in Nashvillee Zoo.
Parbat Laldeng
Denver, United States
Nov 21, 2007 12:00 AM
7
For India, history began on 1026 AD. Which ever way u look.
ANBanerjee
Newcastle, United Kingdom
Nov 20, 2007 12:00 AM
6
Ganpat/Bagai,

>> It is India,s basic misfortune that it was invaded by muslim from the north.

How does Naim's article become an occasion for you to vent your usual anti-Muslim hatred? Don't you have any shame at all?
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Nov 20, 2007 12:00 AM
5
I am not sure what Prof. Naim’s point is. Whatever it is, he comes across as a lightweight. For example, he takes Armitage’s purported statement and concludes that Americans have a radical subjectivity as to when “History” begins. A more persuasive interpretation is Americans are not shackled by the claims of “History” in evaluating their options to take action in any given day. It is more consistent with their action oriented, optimistic and forward looking outlook. Is this Prof. Naim’s enthusiasm for applause or limits of his analytical ability with the historical method?

Perhaps, Naim is saying that cold war distorted the future of many emerging nations, including Pakistan. But then, lot of things did. Economics, technology, productivity, oil prices, political culture, World Wars I and II. But none of that stuff is exciting or easy. Instead, a brief conspiracy detour followed by a recital of questionable assertions is far less taxing. Then, he finally makes a plausible assertion that Pakistani political culture ceded political primacy to the country’s only functional institution, Pakistani military. Curiously, Naim says destruction of democracy in Pakistan (which was never firmly rooted) was “approved and rewarded by Washington at every stage.” Of course, he cites no evidence. But if Pakistan was bend on taking that course of action, wouldn’t third-world intellectuals like Naim have a problem if Washington had interfered and thwarted the will of another nation? Why isn’t Washington merely trying to pursue its interests in a fast unfolding course of events not in its sole control?

Like the French phrase he uses incorrectly (It is menace “du jour” not “de jour”), he uses history incorrectly.

Gus
Augustus aaa
Pune, India
Nov 20, 2007 12:00 AM
4
I usually enjoy some of the writings on India by Prof. Naim. But this one was too weak and pointless by his standards (though it is well referenced). I have a feeling that people individually or collectively cannot be made to do things or be corrupted just because some external power tells them so. Though it is taken as a given thing, the external powers are not that powerful as they are given credit for (just ask the Cubans) Still, they are good excuses for ones own failings. By the same arguments, Turkey should have been a raging despotic state, still the educated there have maintained a liberal democracy with the help of armed forces throughout the same period. Already corrupt people just need a slight poke to fall down and really, a super powers services are not needed here. Could not resist this dig, but the lands of believers seem to be very fertile grounds for Satan to corrupt very easily.
Akhil
Chicago, United States
Nov 20, 2007 12:00 AM
3
While American influence on Pakistani affairs is generally suspected or known, Prof.Naim has shown the degree and extent of American control on various Pakistani governments and especially on Pakistan's army, and how long it has existed. The tentacles of the American government, its CIA and its other intelligence agencies are longer and more sinewy than many of us can imagine. They as well as their Soviet counterparts were, as we know, very active in India also. It is a moot point whether India and Pakistan being at daggers drawn made it that much easier for these superpowers to use our subcontinent as their playground. If India and Pakistan had separated in 1947 as friends, with no outstanding disputes, and with sincere desire to be good neighbors, and had jointly declared a Monroe doctrine for our region, would these ugly subversions of our sovereignities have occurred?
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Nov 20, 2007 12:00 AM
2
Lessons of history matter to people like those of the Indian nation, who, even when overtly provoked, attacked and engaged by its intransigent Muslim neighbor in numerous wars, terrorism in Punjab, Kashmir, terror attacks in metropolises, on Parliament etc. continued to be bogged down by its limitations of military and financial powers, consideration of geopolitical realities etc. and failed to mete out any significant exemplary and deterrent punishment to its tin pot neighbor for the same.

On the other hand, it just took one single small scale attack of 9/11 by some obscure bunch of Muslim fundamentalists on the US soil for the US to undertake such massive retaliation which is presently unfolding, where they (the US) have put the entire Muslim World on notice, marched into and dealt considerable punishment to two sunni muslim nations while looking to do the same in different ways to the other two muslim nations of Iran and Pakistan.
Muslim for Reform
Nashik, India
Nov 20, 2007 12:00 AM
1
The author needs to be reminded that Armitage was just echoing the great US Icon Henry Ford’s immortal comment that ‘History is Bunk’ which is an operational phrase of the great modern day US civilization.

What Henry Ford actually said about history was:

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Chicago Tribune, 1916).

Observed closely, Armitage’s statement is very much similar to Ford’s statement mentioned above

Instead of revisiting the tinpot country Pakistan’s irrelevant chapters of cold war era history, the author could have mulled over the various ways in which the above phrase held good.

History can be thought of helping us in making our task of surmounting our present day problems and completing our tasks at hand easier with lessons learned from the past. However, it is always desirable to try and increase our present strength and capabilities to such lofty levels as to make short work of our problems and tasks instead of trying to make the same easier to deal with. The Americans don’t regard history to be of any import as they proceeded on the above premise to enhance their capabilities to such levels that any historical knowledge to tackle the tasks was not required.

The Americans did not delve into the histories of the Germans, the Japanese and the Russians before proceeding to vanquish their military power and attain its present superpower status. And no one should be mistaken that they will do the same to vanquish the present challenge posed to them by militant and Jihadi Islam without ever referring to the so called glorious history of Islam (in which all the Muslims of the world continue to wallow). Their superior financial, military and strategic powers did not make any distinction based on the histories of the Germans, Japanese and the Russians while cutting them down to size. It will also not be influenced nor does it need to take any lessons from the history of the Muslims while taking up their present challenge.
Muslim for Reform
Nashik, India
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY