THE WESTERN WORLD’S DOUBLE STANDARDS

Dev Nadkarni


Last month’s brutal gun attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore, Pakistan, has once again brought that troubled country into the spotlight.
The international media commented on the deteriorating political and security situation there and the general refrain was that the nation was plunging head-long into a deepening crisis towards what may well result in being termed a failed state.
The historical reasons for what has culminated into the present state of affairs in Pakistan are too complex to go into.
However, one observation by a senior United States official following the Lahore attack seemed quite perceptive.
It may have quite a lot of relevance to how the West’s world view and self-belief that its very own value system, standards—and even double standards, as we shall see—is good for the whole world actually affects nations across the globe—even here in the Pacific Islands.
Asked for his reaction to last month’s attacks in Pakistan, Michael Scheuer, who under the George W. Bush administration headed the CIA’s counter-terrorism unit to track down Osama bin Laden, told the media, “Pakistan is approaching failure and we really have ourselves to blame for this.
“Much of the problem that Pakistan has had in the last year is the result of our insisting that democracy return to the country.
“The result of democracy was putting in [President Asif Ali] Zardari. It is a very tenuous situation and a very bad government to be in charge in that situation.”
He along with several others are of the view that Pakistan was far more stable under the dictatorial leadership of military leader and President Pervez Musharraf, who stepped down following incessantly increasing pressure from the West.
The West’s answer was a democratically elected government and following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, her widower was installed as president last year.
But the so-called democratic government has been limping from one crisis to another and increasingly giving the impression that it is no longer in control.
Soon after the Mumbai carnage, Zardari’s assurance to the Indian authorities that he would send the chief of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence to assist investigations was abruptly overturned by the military—clearly indicating that the so-called democracy was subservient to the power of the gun.
Since then, the country has been ravaged by a series of suicide bombings and other attacks and blasts with the administration having been unable to bring any of the culprits to book including the high profile shooting case of the visiting cricketers’ entourage.
While ramming its world view of democracy down the throats of countries like Pakistan, the West blatantly practices double standards— throwing to the winds the values that Western civilisation holds close to its heart.
The United States’ latest tactic—the approach of dividing the Taleban (“good” Taleban vs “bad” Taleban)—with the Pakistan army’s support—is perhaps the best instance of these double standards.
The Pakistan administration working with the United States has lately been supporting Maulana Fazlullah against Baitullah Mehsud whose territories have recently been continuously bombed by the US drones over the past few weeks.
President Zardari’s administration has even recently made deals with some extremist factions like those of Fazlullah to abandon their opposition to Western forces in return for allowing the Islamic Sharia law to be imposed in some of the areas under their control.
There have also been allegations that money has been used to buy influence over some factions and to get them to side with the coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Some US$6 million has been allegedly given to Maulana Fazlullah for his support and reports have said that the funds came from a Western aid package to the government.
Not that the tactic is working. The attacks on the poor unsuspecting Sri Lankans is ample proof that it is not. But the efficacy of the ploy is not my point.
What is appalling here is that the West even came up with such a tactic.
How can the West’s cherished and much-touted democratic and egalitarian value system ever justify the wisdom of supporting one faction over the other using pecuniary rewards (read bribe)?
Bizarre strategy: How can the West’s value system justify giving concessions to one militant faction to impose an alternative legal system in the areas of its influence—a system that denies education to women, bans music, doles out its own brand of brutal, instant justice; going against the very grain of Western values?
And carrying out that bizarre strategy while claiming to be working with a democratically elected government in that troubled country—a democratic government that is in its place more at its insistence, financial and logistic support than anything else.
Scheuer’s observation rings true with every passing week in Pakistan. Though debatable, letting Musharraf remain might have well been the lesser evil simply going by the relative economic stability that Pakistan had achieved when he was at the helm for nearly a decade.
There is a parallel to this situation in the Pacific though nowhere can the two be compared in scale, the severity of violence, destruction and the potential region-wide threat to peace.
The West’s insistence and mounting pressure on holding democratic elections in Fiji before fully understanding and appreciating the underlying problems and flaws that the current electoral system has, which given its strong racial bias, actually goes against Western values of egalitarianism.
This is quite akin to the West ramming elections down Pakistan’s throat without fully grasping the ground realities.
The recent decision by the West to give breathing space to Fiji’s interim administration to come up with a credible plan is a welcome departure from the months’ long monologue of insisting on an early election, no matter what.
Tolerance is a cherished Western value and there is no reason why it should not be applied to allow nations to sort out their internal problems by themselves and providing whatever help they may need rather than forcing Western models down their throats without bothering to see if they are prepared and primed to receive it.
And when that doesn’t work—as obviously it can’t—bending every value in its own book as its double standards continue to do in Pakistan.