US versus the world

The viewpoint offered by a section of the right-wing US press that anti-Americanism is an entirely irrational reaction to the American way of life does not bear scrutiny.

By M. Zaidi


ANTI-Americanism can be defined as opposition or hostility to the people, government, culture or policies of the US. This label is readily applied by pro-American thinkers to an assortment of worldviews, many of which they consider polemic in their interpretation of the term.

The first edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) defines ‘anti-American’ as opposed to America, or to the true interests or government of the US, or to the revolution in America. In French, the term ‘l’antiaméricanisme’ has evolved since 1948, entering the political currency in the 1950s. The recent exponential rise of the phenomenon is ascribed to particular American policies or actions, such as the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many critics term it as a label employed for the blanket dismissal of any action by the US as irrational. American scholar Paul Hollander describes it as a relentless, critical impulse towards American social, economic and political institutions, traditions and values.

This takes us to the degeneracy thesis espoused by Comte de Buffon in his Histoire Naturelle in 1766. It was proposed that climatic extremes and other atmospheric conditions in the New World (America) weakened the genetic stock of men and animals. Purportedly, the American fauna was smaller than its European counterpart, venomous plants were more abundant etc. In 1768, Dutchman Cornelius de Paw described America as a degenerate or monstrous colony, arguing that the weakest European could crush it with ease. French intellectual Abbé Raynal at the time wrote that America had not produced a good poet, an able mathematician, or a man of genius in a single art or science. This degeneracy thesis was later rebutted by early American thinkers such as Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Authors James W. Ceaser and Philippe Roger have read this as a kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism, one which has debatably fostered vehement rejection of anti-Americanism by the Americans. Purportedly, this long-standing feeling of anti-Americanism has ‘carried over’ to the present times, which, according to some pro-American scholars espousing this theory, lends a mimetic quality to anti-Americanism. French scholar Marie-France Toinet contextualises it as an allergic reaction to America as a whole. Anti-Americanism has also been equated with prejudices such as racism.

Hollander talks of anti-Americanism as not fully rational, a free-floating hostility or aversion feeding on many sources besides America’s discernible inadequacies. Others have put down anti-Americanism as irrational and an ideology dressed up to look like Marxism.

Jean-François Revel and Philippe Roger tend to ascribe anti-Americanism to a long-standing aversion to Americans and everything American, nourished by a concoction of non-liberalism and an irrational resistance to change. AntiAmericanism is also touted as the ideological basis upon which ruling elites gain power, this hostility being harnessed to concretise specific political or religious agendas.

For instance, Francoise Thom highlighted the importance of antiAmericanism in fostering the political and ideological struggle in France, consolidating the various destructive forces in France including virulent Trotskyists, Islamic extremists and radical supporters of anti-globalisation in the context of anti-Americanism.

Scholar Josef Joffe suggests five aspects of the phenomenon including reducing Americans to stereotypes, believing US to be essentially evil, ascribing conspiracy theories to the American establishment aimed at world domination, holding the US responsible for all the world’s evils and isolation from the pervasive influence of American culture and goods. Using antiAmericanism as a symbol of irrationality, the ‘anti’ part of the term becomes the epitome of something pure. Against this, ‘anti’ implies the antithesis of that other ‘goodness’. Using this model, ‘Americanism’ becomes the unpolluted version but at the same time the root cause of ‘anti-Americanism’.

All these often conflicting definitions have lent a certain incoherence to the term turning it into an inherent paradox capable of being rendered articulately as a critique of the opposing viewpoint by critics on both sides of the fence.

In this context, Pierre Guerlain argues for a two-pronged approach in order to approach clarity. One is systematic or essentialist, which is a form of prejudice targeting all Americans. The other refers to the way criticism of the US is labelled anti-American by those supporting American policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents. Guerlain insists that the two forms can morph in certain situations making the analysis pertinent only in a particular paradigm. This is the middle way which at least accepts that anti-Americanism can be a manifestation of genuine grievances.

It is not a coincidence that intellectual Noam Chomsky draws parallels with the totalitarian state methods by comparing anti-Americanism to ‘anti-Sovietism’, a label utilised by the Kremlin to demonise dissident or critical thought.

The reductionist view is widely used by the American media in particular, which espouses that the essential goodness of American culture generates jealousy and awe in less inspired societies, which compensate for their lack of freedom as compared to America by turning their awe into hostility. ‘They shall not violate our way of life’, ‘we will protect our liberty’ and ‘they hate America for our way of life and freedom’ all become slogans associated with eliciting a schizoid response from irrational wannabees.

This viewpoint blatantly ignores the fact that people in the rest of the world could, in fact, be rational human beings, have genuine grievances and may put the onus of their grudges on America’s foreign policy. The fact that the end of the Cold War and unipolarity has been associated with an almost simultaneous escalation of anti-Americanism supports evidence of foreign policy as an alienating agent.

Of course, many cogent arguments could be offered from both sides, and undoubtedly there are biased views of the US, but the viewpoint offered by some among the right-wing US press and even academia that anti-Americanism is an entirely irrational reaction to the American way of life does not bear scrutiny. ¦

The writer is a security analyst.

Seraiki province debate

Those who do not want to see the erosion of Punjab’s dominance will resist the Seraiki province move.

By Mazhar Arif


FOR the past few weeks, talk about the creation of new provinces has dominated the discussion in the media.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has announced that the creation of a Seraiki province will be included in the PPP manifesto for the 2013 general elections, while the PML-Q claims its alliance with the PPP is only on condition that the southern part of Punjab be declared a separate province. Now, the PML-N has come up with its own suggestions for new provinces.

The creation of a Seraiki province will not only respond to the aspirations of the 40 million people of the Seraiki region, it should also remove the impression of Punjab having a ‘colonial’ mindset.

Before discussing the challenges obstructing the way to a Seraiki province, it is pertinent to mention the debate of ‘linguistic’ or ‘administrative’ provinces. Pakistan is a federation comprising federating units constituted on a linguistic, cultural and historical basis. Though the federating units have not been given their rights and have continuously been treated as administrative units so far, they have not surrendered their cultural, linguistic, regional and historical identities.

New provinces, if created, will in fact be new ‘federating units’ representing social, cultural, linguistic and historical values and the aspirations of their respective peoples in the federation of Pakistan. If talk of administrative provinces is not meant to confuse the people, then it simply shows constitutional illiteracy on the part of their proponents. The demand for new provinces, particularly the Seraiki and Hazara provinces, is not only for administrative or financial authority but also for the political, cultural and linguistic rights guaranteed under the constitution. Talk of administrative provinces is tantamount to denial of constitutional rights.

A Seraiki province is referred to as ‘south Punjab’, which is an incorrect description of the geographical dimensions of the Seraiki region. It would include not only south Punjab or the administrative divisions of Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan but the whole of southwest Punjab (including D.I. Khan and Tank in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) from Mianwali, Khushab, Bhakkar, Jhang and a part of Sargodha in the west Punjab to Bahawalpur division in the south.

There are some other important issues which should be addressed for the smooth and peaceful creation of a Seraiki province.

First, the reappearance of the movement for the restoration of a Bahawalpur state has made the demarcation of a Seraiki province a challenge. Despite the presence of Punjabi-speaking settlers largely in the rural areas, Bahawalpur division is a true representative of the Seraiki language and culture. The Seraiki Sufi poet Khawaja Ghulam Fareed belonged to Bahawalpur state. Most of the leaders and workers of the Bahawalpur Suba Mahaz, launched in 1970, later joined the Seraiki Suba Mahaz. But the fact that a separate course will ultimately dilute their cultural and linguistic identity because of the demographic changes in Bahawalpur division during the past decades has been ignored.

Political or quasi-political forces that do not want to see the erosion of Punjab’s dominance will resist the move to create a Seraiki province covertly if not overtly. The recent Bahawalpur province movement is already being seen by Seraiki activists as suspicious.

Second, the majority of people of D.I. Khan and Tank districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are Seraiki-speaking. They are asking to be part of a Seraiki province and have formed the Seraiki Suba Mahaz to launch a campaign for the inclusion of their districts in the new province. National Assembly deputy speaker Faisal Karim Kundi is in the forefront of the campaign. The ANP’s stance is not clear yet. It has not openly opposed the demand, but convincing the ANP leadership and other Pakhtun nationalists to surrender the two districts will not be easy.

Third, there are some districts in western Punjab such as Mianwali, Khushab, Bhakkar and Jhang wherein feelings of a Seraiki identity are strong but Seraiki political organisations non-existent. There are a large number of Seraiki activists in this area but they lack organisation and a vocal local pro-Seraiki leadership, except for Dr Sher Afgan Niazi.

Fourth, the Punjabi-speaking settlers in Thal and Cholistan and the urban population consisting of migrants from India are largely supporters of the PML-N. Two or three of their generations have been born and reared in the Seraiki region and the majority of them favour a separate province, but they may toe the PML-N line of an ‘administrative province’ obstructing the creation of a province on a linguistic and cultural basis.

Fifth, and perhaps the most important, is the disconnect between the PPP and Seraiki nationalists. As the nationalists have been isolated, they doubt the PPP’s sincerity regarding the creation of the province. The PPP Punjab leadership is based in central Punjab. Other senior party leaders are either from central Punjab or Sindh. Differences between the PPP and Seraiki activists does not augur well.

Intriguingly, the participa tion of proponents of the new provinces is missing from all discussion in newspapers and TV channels. The discussions are being held in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi without participation of Seraikis or Hazarawals. The discussions are being seen as one-sided and largely advocating so-called ‘administrative provinces’.

In view of the abovementioned challenges, the PPP and PML-Q, that are going to contest the next general elections jointly, need a comprehensive joint strategy and a joint campaign for the creation of a Seraiki province. As a first step, both parties need separate provincial organisations for the Seraiki region. Close coordination and participation of the PPP and PML-Q leaders and workers and Seraiki activists will make the strategy more effective.

Serious negotiations should be initiated with genuine leaders of Bahawalpur who have been the torchbearers of the Seraiki language, culture and history. The prime minister may compromise on the question of the capital of the proposed new province. The non-Seraiki speaking population should also be taken into confidence. ¦

The writer is founder-general secretary of Seraiki Lok Sanjh. mazhar@alternativemedia.org.pk