Login | Sign Up

«
»

The menace of the infantile Left

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

By Ishtiaq Ahmed

A curious situation prevails currently in Pakistan. Both religious fascists and infantile Leftists are hell-bent on opposing the presence of the US in Afghanistan. If the Americans were to leave today, the right and left ‘historic United Front against Imperialism’ will not last a day. So, what will happen in such a situation?

The Taliban will return to power. It is not difficult to appreciate that the balance of power will tilt heavily in favour of the Pakistani right as well. Its cadres, supporters and sympathisers will receive a powerful boost, which may catapult them into power, something they have so far been denied by the Pakistan military, which has paid dearly in blood for that. In such a situation, the first priority of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces would be the politicised, yet systematic annihilation of people because of their political views: the liberals, secularists, socialists, Marxists, orthodox communists and most certainly the infantile Left as well. Thereafter, the usual hate objects, women and religious minorities, can be chastised.

Therefore, when some leftists end up on the barricades alongside religious fascists, they can only be described as infantile. Fortunately, the infantile Leftists are not many, most of the Left old guard are better educated and have more experience to know that anti-imperialism cannot be a magic mantra that trumps all other options in a complex and dangerous situation.
Marshal Stalin had no difficulty in striking an alliance with the US to defeat Nazism and fascism. Chairman Mao found another way to circumvent imperialism in order to procure US support to get the People’s Republic of China’s rightful permanent seat in the UN Security Council. He invented the term ‘social imperialism’ to declare the Soviet Union as enemy number one of the international proletariat. For all practical purposes, the slogan of US imperialism was relegated to the backburner and it has remained there ever since.

Chinese trade and foreign policies have courted US imperialism with great skill. In return, the US created conditions it had earlier furnished for Southeast Asia to draw greater foreign investments and thus achieve dynamic growth. China’s phenomenal economic achievements are no doubt a product of the ingenuity of the Chinese leaders and policy makers, but part of that ingenuity has been to adopt pragmatic policies and not be bogged down by dogma.

From a genuine leftist point of view, it is important that the forces of reaction and fascism are defeated, but that cannot be done now in Afghanistan without US help as was also true during World War II in Germany. Quite simply, the US alone has the technological and military power to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda. However, the war cannot be won without the US, NATO and other allies making a sincere and concerted effort to support Pakistan, while simultaneously determining the exact role of India in Afghanistan.

India has a large presence in Afghanistan, which the Pakistanis find, to say the least, perturbing. Richard Holbrooke initially dismissed Pakistani concerns, but both he and the US military commanders in Afghanistan have begun to take note of the ambiguity of the Indian factor. In a future article I will dwell upon the role India can and must play if the war on terrorism is ever to succeed. The West must also understand that there are limits to its ability to use Pakistan.

The Americans bear a direct and very big responsibility for creating social, educational and political conditions that made possible the birth of organisations such as al Qaeda and the Taliban. There was no chance that a jihad sponsored by US-Saudi funding and indoctrination would be conducive to democracy and human rights. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted publicly that the US played a leading part in promoting the monster of extremist Islamism.

Long years ago, but sometime between November 22 to 29, 1864, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels formulated a statement on behalf of working men and women to President Abraham Lincoln to congratulate him for abolishing slavery. It is important to remember that the abolition of slavery was made possible by one of the bloodiest civil wars in history between the northern forces loyal to Lincoln and the southern forces of the slave owners. They hoped that Lincoln, the son of a workingman, would also work for the betterment of the working people. The statement was handed over to the US ambassador in London, Charles Francis Adam. Lincoln did not reply directly but in a letter dated January 28, 1865, Ambassador Adam informed them that the letter had been received by the president. Adams remarked: “The government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and goodwill throughout the world.”

There is now another president in the White House after 145 years whose heart beats in the right place. This time, President Obama has offered his hand and it must be taken. If the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership is rendered ineffective, their appeal to the Muslim masses will fade quickly. After the Nazi leadership was eliminated, the German people quickly changed their loyalties. War is evil and killing human beings is an unpardonable sin, but as long as an ideology and a movement that is manifestly hostile to peace and pluralism is around, it will have to be fought against and defeated. President Obama’s acceptance speech in Oslo on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009, captured that irony most pithily.

The time to bury the hatchet has come, but it should be epitomised with the Palestinians being granted their separate state with East Jerusalem as their capital while the Arabs grant Israel full recognition as a bona fide state in the Middle East; and, in South Asia, Kashmir becomes a zone of peace once India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris agree to an honourable and just solution that produces all winners and no losers. Obviously that is not possible if the status quo alone is the basis for a settlement.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also a Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State?


Tags: , , ,

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Comments

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »
« Older Comments
Newer Comments »

Leave a Reply

Name *:
E-Mail *: (will not be published)
Website:
Comments:
CAPTCHA Image
*
 

Powered by Hashe!