May 24, 2002
However. The beginning of wisdom is recognizing that if the worst does happen, and Pakistan and India start a nuclear war, the blame will most properly rest with India and Pakistan. They’ve been at the Kashmir business for 55 years now, and both countries have worked damned hard to get themselves to the point where they can jointly turn the subcontinent into hell on earth. While your respectable commentators and journals give the idea short shrift, the amazing truth is that these dusky foreigners have minds of their own, and interests to match, and may act for reasons wholly unrelated to the clarity of our signals or the strength of our resolve.[05:18 PM]Unqualified Offerings suspects US attempts to “solve” the situation may make things worse. How? By removing the local actors’ own sense of final responsibility. If the US shows up in its referee suit, then both sides commence a game of “Let’s see how far we can go before the ref calls foul.” Answer: Too far, easily. Because we don’t really have the power to keep the subcontinent from blowing itself up. We can block their view of an abyss they need to see with absolute clarity.
Does it seem to everyone else who thought that the USA's (and Mr Bush's, in particular) rebuff of freer trade with Pakistan was a bad idea that this situation is the kind of bad outcome we expected, except maybe, you know, even worse?
I think Henley's point is that "this situation" isn't necessarily primarily an "outcome" of that or of anything else we've done lately. Even with America bestriding the globe like a colossus, not everything that happens is All About Us.
Do I think the Administration's persistent bad faith on the subject of freer trade with third-world countries is a bad thing? Assuredly. Am I convinced that it's the main reason this 55-year-old crisis is hitting the boil? No.
It's good to be constantly asking ourselves what we could have done, and what we can do, to make things better; but I sometimes wonder if American liberals' rush to take all responsibility for every global badness isn't just the flip side of the neocon hawks' eagerness to send in the troops next Tuesday. Both are based in a kind of hubris -- a utopian fantasy that American power is infinite, rather than merely huge.
I agree with you about the age and persistence of this state of armed conflict. It's nobody's fault but the people giving the order to shoot.
I don't by any means hold the US responsible for the state of affairs in South Asia. I don't even hold Britain responsible for it. But I do hold the current administration responsible for stirring up the pot and then walking away, and think it is quite justifiable to point to a prediction of how the administration's short-sightedness would make life worse for all of us.
What I'm trying to point out is that critics of the US government suggested that things would get worse in South Asia if the US didn't repay Pakistan's cooperation with reduction in cotton tariffs. They were right.
Was this the only cause? No. Is there some action the US can or should now take to set it right? Sadly, nothing simple and direct.
I'm not calling on the USA to fix what's wrong with Pakistan and India, or even Bangladesh. I'm pointing to a success in predicting that a region of the world the US had just put its foot in would get less stable if the US didn't make Pakistan's help meaningful and positive for average Pakistanis.
I think we pretty much agree -- see my next post.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on The pit: