When Does History Begin?

On 9/11, the head of Pakistan's Inter-ServicesIntelligence agency (ISI) was in Washington. The next day he met with the DeputySecretary of State, Richard Armitage, According to MaleehaLodhi, Pakistan's ambassador at the time and a witness to the meeting, 'Armitagestarted out by saying: "This is a grave moment. History begins today for theUnited States. We're asking all our friends--you're not the only country we'respeaking 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 wasArmitage'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 somedemurring sounds and referred to the prior US involvement in Afghanistan, he cuthim short by saying, 'History begins for us today.'

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

I don't think Armitage, a second-tier functionary, was expressing merely anindividual's hubris. His remark, I'm convinced, was indicative of a moreprevalent sickness. For the people who rule the roost in Washington, historydoes begin the day they wish to choose. Presently, they dictate that Iran'shistory 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 whenthe United States, Saudi Arabia and indeed Kuwait outsourced to him theirpreemptive strike against Iran; and that Afghanistan's history should likewisebegin from the day we launched an attack against the Taliban, and none shoulddare bring up--as the hapless Pakistani spook tried--the refugee camps where,for years, the United States directly helped the Saudis to preach sectarianIslam and bankroll foreign mujahideen.

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

Pakistan came into existence in 1947, simultaneous withthe 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 andVietnam. The same Cold War also cruelly distorted the future for a great manyother emerging nations, including Pakistan.

Pakistan had initially tried to win American assistance in two forms: directdevelopmental aid, civil and military, and diplomatic support against India. Itsfirst Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan toured the United States in 1950 at theinvitation of President Truman, and the visit was seen by the Pakistanis as atriumph. But Washington was still hopeful of winning over Nehru and India, abigger 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 ConspiracyTheory. By early 1951, when it became clear that the United States was notforthcoming with the kind of support that Pakistan desired--and what India hadstarted getting from the USSR--Liaquat Ali began making some public noises thatWashington didn't like. He even made plans for a trip to the USSR. A few monthslater, in a public meeting at Rawalpindi, Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated.Moments later, the killer was also gunned down by the police officer on specialduty. When, in due course a senior investigative officer was appointed to makean inquiry, he too perished, together with all his files, when his plane crashedand 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 thecabinet for ostensible reasons of health. On October 18, however, the sameGhulam Muhammad became Pakistan's third Governor General. Here it is importantto 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'smajor successes had been to bring that power back to where it should havebelonged in the first place, namely with the nation's legislative assembly andits elected Prime Minister. Now it went back to the Governor General House.

I had thought that the United States' direct dealings with the Pakistani armyin 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 thatI 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 Ministerand appointing instead a man, who was not even a legislator but only Pakistan'sambassador in Washington. And when Ghulam Muhammad actually became physicallydisabled in the extreme, he handed over power in 1955 not to a politician but toa general: Gen. Iskandar Mirza. During the four years of his dictatorial rule,hand in hand with the Pakistani army and Washington, Ghulam Muhammad receivedthe usual rewards. Time magazine is reported to have described him as the'Reluctant Dictator'. It's also on record that in 1954, the United Statesincreased its military support to Pakistan from 26 million to 105 million.

I must emphasize here that in his expropriation of every possibleconstitutional authority, Ghulam Muhammad was fully supported by Pakistan'sSupreme Court, in particular by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir. Ghulam Mohammad's 'Ordinancefor Emergency Powers,' and Munir's 1954 opinion that sovereignty in Pakistanresided with the Governor General and not the Legislative Assembly, are eventoday two of the supports of the constitutional stance taken by the presentGeneral/President. At a time when the New York Times and the bosses inWashington are showing an unusual congruency of thought in declaring BenazirBhutto to be the next champion of democracy in Pakistan, it might be useful toremember that 50 or so years ago it was not the Pakistani army that forciblygrabbed control of Pakistan's politics. It happened the other way around: amajority of Pakistani politicians and judges willingly handed over power to thearmy. And the destruction of democracy in Pakistan was approved and rewarded byWashington at every stage.

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

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

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

I stop my historical narrative here. Let me conclude bysaying that the 'menace du jour' in those days was Communism. Today, it isGlobal 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, ourman in Islamabad is John D. Negroponte. Long before becoming the first Directorof National Intelligence for President Bush in 2005, Negroponte had been our manin Honduras from 1981 to 1985. The entries on him in Wikipediaand 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 ofU.S. activities in Honduras. Speaking of Negroponte and other senior U.S.officials, an ex-Honduran congressman . . . was quoted as saying: "Theirattitude was one of tolerance and silence. They needed Honduras to loan itsterritory more than they were concerned about innocent people being killed."

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

C. M. Naim is Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago. He made the above remarksat a roundtable on Pakistan at the University of Chicago, on Nov17th 2007

Notes:

1. The documents concerning that secret trip were declassified in 2002 and provide fascinating reading, in particular document3.

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.