Mahrukh A Mughal
AFTER the fall of Saddam Hussain, the victory of anti-US cleric Muqtada-a-Sadr and his Sairoon coalition in Iraqi elections embarrassed the IS. Washington had launched the Iraq war in an attempt to create a pro-US Iraqi regime leading to huge number of casualties and economic losses but now it will probably see an Iraqi government that is anti-US and pro Iran. Historically the US has had massive capacity to reshape a region or a country. During the American war of independence and territorial expansion, the US reshaped the political and security landscape of North America. It sidelined France, Russia and Spain, marginalized the UK and gave aborigines social status, establishing the basis for it to become a major world power. After the 20th Century, US has applied this ability mainly in Latin America, Japan and Europe.
Till the end of the Cold War, Germany and Japan were two successful examples of countries reshaped by the US and were accepted or even welcomed by the Western world. Meanwhile the US also changed the way European countries acted. It transformed Europe’s traditional logic of balance of power and helped bring about democracy in the Continent although it was dominated by the US. Washington also promoted European integration. But after the end of the Cold War, when Europe changed its old mindset of balance of power, it was used again by the US to handle its foreign relations. In the process, Washington tried to reshape Russia and some countries in the Middle East and North Africa but failed. The US was stronger, powerful as imagined to interfere in the internal affairs of other counties and reshaping them. The US political elite traditionally like to demonise ideological opponents and are fanatic about force, making it easier for the US to have distorted judgments of the domestic situation in other countries and thus exacerbating their internal chaos.
The US tends to overrate its ideology and deem regimes which disapprove or challenge US liberalism as rivals or enemies. This gives the US a simplistic view of the target country and a wrong judgment of the latter’s domestic power. Military strikes are often a priority of the US. But its military might usually turns out to be destructive rather than constructive. The weakened or even destroyed regime of a country often foments riots, as seen in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Besides the US has not done well in learning from tragedies and hence repeated its mistakes in its attempts to reshape other regimes. It believes that establishing a US-style democracy is a wish shared by all people. The reshaping of Japan and Germany during the Cold War is often seen as a successful model to be applied to any other country. However, several studies have shown that the cases are not universally applicable and failures are more often expected, as proved by US military intervention in Victims in Latin America, Middle East and North Africa. The US believes that other countries’ model of governance lack legitimacy. As a result it cannot assess the situation in other nations objectively and its policy often fails to change them as anticipated. This can be observed from changes in the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Moreover, in diplomacy, the US prioritizes relations with others irrespective of whether other nation’s behavior is right or wrong, which makes its reshaping of other countries unsustainable. For the past 70 years, the US has believed that its successful diplomacy is based on a sound alliance system. This may be effective in dealing with external enemies, but useless in reshaping other countries. In terms of alliance, the US relentlessly supports a political force without considering the latter’s public support. But what the US backs is often the disruptive force, which frustrates its attempt to reshape the country. Despite a strong resolve to reshape other countries the US method hasn’t worked effectively and more often it brings conflicts instead of lasting stability and peace.
A University of Tennessee Research Fellow says US counter terrorism policies have increased anti-Americanism in many Muslim countries. The US needs to establish its counter terrorism policy keeping in view the local sensitivities of other nations. American counter terrorism policies have increased anti-Americanism in many Muslim countries. The US needs to distinguish between international and domestic terrorism. “If you look at the trajectory of the two kinds of terrorism, there are very different outcomes. Number of international terrorist attack each year remains relatively small. However, if we look at domestic terrorism we see a different story” said University of Tennessee Research Fellow Harrison Akins. Unfortunately, Pakistan is one of those states, where there has been dramatic increase in domestic terrorist attacks, he added. Unfortunately, the US too often establishes counter terrorism policies based upon its own interests and tries to find a one size fits all approach, which is not sensitive to local political, social, cultural and historical contexts he admitted. Akins recommended that the US needs to move beyond the narrow focus of security perspective and engage with Pakistan as a sovereign nation. “We need to establish and enhance business exchanges; person to person exchanges; and scholarship programmes. Both sides need to focus on what is common and need to identify areas of cooperation, from that we can begin to rebuild trust. Then from that position of trust, both countries can be working on serious issues”, he stated. And “If we continue to pound pressure on security interest it will not help as US should not work from a one track mind.”
— The author, a freelance columnist, is based in Lahore.
