Conspiracy behind calling Pakistan a ‘failed’ state

[I M Possible]

Conspiracy behind calling Pakistan a ‘failed’ state




By Dr Saifur Rahman Sherani

THE Fund for Peace (FfP) has made extra efforts to please its financiers by advancing Pakistan from the 34th to 9th rank on the Failed States Index (FSI) in just one year and one notch ahead of Afghanistan. Commonsense would not accept this dubious, rather mischievous, piece of international comparisons.

The indices may have some substance but are meaningless because the purpose is to warn Pakistan. American social scientists and think-tanks have, over the years, developed a methodology to label certain states as totalitarian, failed, rogue and axis of evil to meet their country’s foreign policy needs. These labels were used for political propaganda in the past and are now employed to justify the new doctrine of pre-emptive strike.

Pakistan’s elevation on the FSI signifies Washington’s frustration over the failure of its policies along with those of its allies to bring about peace in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, on its part, has launched into a full-scale tirade of accusations against Pakistan to cover up its helplessness to contain the rising tide of insurgency. The Afghan leadership regularly supplicates to the international community (meaning the West) for help in putting an end to ‘Pakistan’s support’ to Taliban. Now some American newspapers have published reports which point to other factors for the growing power of Taliban rather than support from Pakistan.

Americans are unhappy with Pakistan despite the fact that it is a perfect neo-colonial state with a measure of submission and compliance to their dictates. Already, it is playing a frontline role in their war on terror. Not only the government but the leaders in opposition parties too are equally eager to serve the US interests in many ways to the sheer disgust of their countrymen.

What are the reasons for US displeasure? The real irritant for the United States and the think tanks and scholars in its service is nuclear capability of Pakistan. Perhaps, they are afraid, that Pakistan may achieve a radical break with its past and that its leadership may follow the policies similar to those of Iran and Venezuela. This thinking is, however, bereft of logic as Pakistan is not an oil-rich country and that most of its economy is already mortgaged to the Bretton Woods institutions. Its martial races pursued internecine rivalry in the past and now compete in devising stratagems to impoverish masses and plunder national resources.

Keeping in view the hard fact that this country is not prone to any revolutionary change in the foreseeable future, targeting it with contempt owes an explanation.

The conceptual framework and methodology of the FSI is questionable. The reliability of data and validity of measurement is an important factor in social science as is operationalisation of concepts in variables and indicators. Social science can only measure properties of the indicators. But if objectivity is sacrificed, one can obtain the results of his choice.

Now as far as the factor of objectivity in the work of certain American social scientists is concerned, it has been questioned on occasions by their own fellow scientists. They have generally been found suffering from two major weaknesses: one, willingness to engage in espionage in other countries during their research studies and, second, pleasing their employers with concocted theories and propagandist literature. These shortcomings may not be peculiar to the American scientists alone.

On espionage by US academicians, Chris Bunting wrote an article titled “I Spy with my Science Eye” in the Times Higher Education Supplement published on April 12, 2002. As early as 1919, Farnz Boas, one of the founders of American Anthropological Association (AAA) had accused some of his fellow scientists of spying for the government. Boas said that these scientists have “prostituted their science”. Consequently, the AAA censured Boas and removed him from the executive council of the association. Scholars accused of spying included big names from Harvard and other prestigious institutions and were working for the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the CIA.

There is a debate currently raging among US academicians about whether spying was in national interest, and there are many who find nothing wrong in doing so. Bunting quoted David Price, an anthropologist at St Martin’s College in Washington, saying “Academics are already working with the Americans in Afghanistan in areas such as directing the bombing so that it does not hit civilians.” Academicians are known to have provided intelligence leading to massacre of peasants in Indonesia in 1960s and cruel acts in Vietnam war.

Bunting also quoted US Senate committee report of 1976 which said: “The CIA is now using several hundred American academics located in more than 100 American colleges, universities and related institutes. In addition, there are several American academics abroad who serve operational purposes, primarily the collection of intelligence.” He pointed out that the MIT’s Centre for International Studies was reportedly clandestinely funded by the CIA at its inception. Eric Ross, an American anthropologist at the Institute of Social Studies in Netherlands says there may be links between academicians and intelligence agencies in other countries as well. “There will be a lot of grant money and a lot of positions that will come directly out of the intelligence agencies’ pockets. Many will take this money because they believe they are here to do a job for people in power.”

The CIA scholars also collect intelligence from newspapers and magazines. Perhaps, in case of Pakistan, the authors of Pakistan Country Profile (PCP) at FfP did collect information from such credible sources as news analyses published in newspapers. The PCP — the basis of the FSI — stated in the opening sentence that Pakistan has been “plagued by chronic unrest” ever since independence in 1947; it is facing instability, as “violence between Muslims and Christian and Hindu groups (three per cent) has led to tens of thousands of deaths since independence”. In a narrative of 47 sentences, 13 sentences build the case of instability in Pakistan.

What is the definition of chronic unrest? Can a country suffering from chronic unrest become a favourable place for international money lenders? Pakistan is the second largest recipient of loans from the Asian Development Bank and had been provided huge loans by the Bretton Woods institutions and other multilateral lending agencies. Not only that, it has serviced loans and repaid several of them on maturity.

The PCP further says that the October 2005 earthquake “is the single largest factor in Pakistan’s significant jump on the Failed States Index 2006”. Devastating storms like Rita and Katrina and the huge defence expenditures on Iraq and Afghanistan wars have not made a dent in the US economy but the earthquake which devastated 0.56 per cent of the total area and 0.49 per cent population of Pakistan has turned Pakistan into a failed state and raised its ranking on the FSI.

Eight of the 47 sentences deal with the earthquake and say “Pakistan’s economy was artificially inflated ... following the earthquake, with billions of dollars of international aid ...” This offers no surprise as the Americans tend to see the aid, which is mostly spent on their own experts, as a great benefit to Pakistan.

The PCP says that Pakistan’s economy remained unchanged in 2005 but then refers to its GDP growth of seven per cent which, it says, was “driven by gains in industrial production and the gradual shift away from dependency on the agricultural sector”. One wonders how change is described by these think-tanks.

Seven of the 47 sentences are vile propaganda against President Musharraf, something usual in American media for the past few years. No one could be more ill-informed than the authors of the PCP. The crux of the matter is described in a nutshell as “(ISI) continued to operate as a state within a state.” Had the authors asked for a peer review from observers of Pakistan military in Washington?

After reading the PCP one needs to know the opinion of American scientists about scholars and experts in think-tanks. William Beeman, a professor of anthropology at Brown University, in an article posted on Prof Juan Cole’s website on June 13, makes a scathing criticism of American scholars working in academies and think-tanks who, he says, are producing “worthless” publications. Beeman laments that scholars publishing “the most questionable material” are in the ascendancy and that real scholars are derided.

Beeman says the government bodies no longer call academic experts for public testimony on many subjects but the denizens of think-tanks overwhelm in all realms. He says: “On no subject is this more true than the Middle East area. If you are not in a think-tank in Washington, apparently your expertise matters not at all. Never mind that the think tank denizens were never in the region, don’t know the languages, and never did any research in their lives. If their ideology is in line with the White House, that is good enough.” Read the PCP in light of these comments.

The FSI is a piece of calculated propaganda promoted by Washington. By calling it a failed state, Pakistan is being pressured by the US to do more than what it was doing. The US, on its part, can take any step without considering the outcome. The war on terrorism, President Bush had earlier said, “will be waged by day and by night, in the light and in the shadow, in battles you will see and in battles you won’t see”.

Reference: DAWN - Encounter, July 8, 2006.