When my son started First Grade, come the start of African-American History Month, he coolly informed his (predominantly East and South Asian) classmates that his otherwise very Pakistani-looking, and sounding "dad is an African-American". I do not remember ever having used that phrase within earshot of him. But he knows that I was born in same region of Africa that is the origin of most of the people who came to this country as slaves. And thus I came to this country as an African-born grad student much like Barack Obama Sr.
So don't get me wrong; I love my brother Barack Hussain. I have been following his presidential ambitions almost form first buzz around a possible run--and have discussed it in my blogging and even Urdu podcasting. I am joyous at seeing him in the White House. To repeat the cliche, it tells me that my now 8-year old son and, even more possibly, my 4-year old daughter can really follow in his footsteps.
And I am actually one person who did NOT hold his staying mum even about the events in Gaza over the last month or so against him. Speaking out would only have used up political capital that he didn't need to spend for no substantial gain. Whichever way he chose to lean, it would have have cost him; either in terms of political support at home, or in goodwill that he still has on "the Muslim street".
But when my brother Barack Hussain says:
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."
And then his first real communique in terms of practically reaching out and doing something is an unmanned drone dropping bombs in violation of the sovereignty of the 2nd largest Muslim country in the Muslim world--a country that has been one of the longest-term and faithful allies of the US--then I feel it is my duty, as a person who wants him to succeed, to ask him to think about what message the people who actually live at the business end of that communique will be receiving.
In case you missed the full interview (say you've been vacationing on Mars and just returned), here is his first formal foray into the Muslim media
[Cross-posted from http://blog.iFaqeer.com]
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Technorati
"Americans are not your enemy" is great poetry for people who still believe in that sort of thing. And while the average American is not the enemy of Muslim countries,
it's entrenched government most definitely is. It's like a rapist pouncing on you and saying "I don't want to hurt you, lay still and let me just do what I'm going to do anyway, to your live or dead body." I was very excited about Obama's win until I started seeing all the reasons to be disappointed. As it stands, yes, I am still happy that a black man can be elected in this country. But it illustrates a very alarming fact. No matter who is in there, the policies and agendas are going to be the same because whether Obama says he's banning lobbies or not, it's lobbies that run washington and it's corporations who put them there, in most cases.
Very true as you rightly said. He really can not do much although intentions are really good in certain aspects. His push on Afghanistan of course would no doubt alienate Muslims.He would be guided by certain aspects on which he can not have ccontrol.
Dr K Prabhakar Rao
iFaqeer, my man, you and I agree on a lot of things, but this is definitely not one of them. No, I think there have been Pakistani governments that have periodically allied with the US, but come on. I'm not suggesting that the bombings were a good idea, but your statement above is stretching things. No offense, but I find it hard to stomach the argument that a country whose military and intelligence community that gives the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and their ilk sanctuary can in any way be called an ally of the United States.
Still, I don't think military actions is the answer, as I've said before:
World history did not start in 1992 when the Taliban came into existence, ya know. If you work backwards:
* Between 1977 and 1992 the US and Pakistan were partners in the fight to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Of course, of all the people amongst the Afghans that the governments of these countries picked to back--together with their allies in the House of Saud--were the most obcurantist, neo-purist fanatics like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
* Black Hawk Down: the way the Pakistani army grunts tell it, it was they that prevented much worse from happening in Somalia.
* In the 60s and early 70s, when American decided to engage in detente with China, it was the Pakistanis (again with the help of a military dictator, yes) that came to help--Kissinger flew to China on a Pakistan Air Force plane, ya know.
* When Pakistan first became into existence--and it is in this case, that you can really make a case that it's a genuine nation-to-nation bond--it's democratically elected, moderate, leadership (most specifically in the form of its first Prime Minister) who majorly po'ed Stalin hisself by turning down an invitation to make the Soviet Union his first major international stop to tour the US. His speech just a few miles from where you live is available at:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/50/50-05khan-audio.html
* Pakistan then proceeded to join first SEATO and then CENTO, officially becoming a US ally and not officially joining the Non-Aligned Movement till much later; something I find much more honest than the actions of such other great luminaries such as Nehru who signed a "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" with the USSR and yet claimed leadership of the NAM.
And that's just a decade-by-decade broad brush.
As for the Taliban, how do you find Pakistan's working with them much different from the feelers that GW hisself was trading with them during his own elections before 2000? And if you want the original template of what might have been if the Al-Qaeda factor wasn't in play, just look to the original Deal with The Devil of Neo-Purist Islam, which was struck by no less than FDR hisself on an aircraft carrier right after WW II.
As we say in South Asia, iss hamaam main sub nangay hain: "ain't nobody wearing no clothes in this bath house", not just the emperor.
The real point, from the point of view of the masses is that the US seems to much prefer working with military dictators. When you have a Musharraf, or an Ayub (Gun Salutes and Yacht cruises with Kennedy come to mind; "Whatever he wants from me, he can have." Jackie K said of the man), or a Zia, the US works with them; when we have an elected Nawaz Sharif, Bill Clinton refuses to do us even the honour of a proper State visit. And then any American has the chutzpah to complain about democracy not taking root and clenched fists? For three generations, my family has been struggling against the neo-purist ideology of Maududi (and, in the Arab World, Wahab and Qutub); and too often the US and the West has been in cahoots with them; whether it was the Wahabist General Zia and his political base in the Jamat-e-Islami not to again mention his blue-eyed boy Gulbuddin in Afghanistan; or whether it was supporting Hamas as a counterpoint to the PLO; or being the patrons of the House of Saud.
This was the single most salient point in your entire argument.
1) ON GW's TRADING: Seriously? This is the argument you want to use? Seriously? GW did it, so Pakistan shouldn't be blamed for doing it? Seriously? So if I think GW ought to be indicted and tried for war crimes - which I do - then it should follow that the elements of Pakistan's government and military that supported the Taliban and are giving sanctuary to bin Laden ought to follow the same fate, no? Or should we let them slide for it?
2) ON FDR: I assume you're talking about FDR's deal with the ibn Saud. Man, you're reaching. Few, if any, knew about the threat this brand of Islam would come to pose on the world - you're faulting FDR for not having the foresight to see 70 years into the future? And how does this excuse Pakistan's recent actions?
Pointing to past transgressions on behalf of others to distract from the crimes of the present is disingenuous. I respect what many in Pakistan are doing to fight against Wahabism and its ilk, but to tell me that Pakistan still is a strong ally of the States because its past presidents and dictators had tea and crumpets with American leaders is sophistry.
Yeah, American foreign policy has sucked these last few decades, perhaps even longer than that. Yeah, we made deals with the devil we knew to roll back the devil we didn't want. Yeah, it was a bad idea; we gave birth to many of the demons that came back and bit us in the ass.
But my single argument was this: Pakistan is not a true ally of the U.S. Not was. Is. Whatever their allegiances and leanings were in the past, right now, at this moment, they are not a true ally, if for no other reason than a significant portion of the nation has turned anti-American.
I suspect we will be in agreement as to why this is the case, and I suspect we will be in agreement as to what needs to be done about it, as I know us to be in agreement that bombing Pakistani territory may not have been a good move.
But Pakistan is not a true ally. We cannot expect from them the things we would expect and ask of our allies. I'd like to have them as allies. I think it would be enormously beneficial to the world if Pakistan were defused and turned pro-American through the sole application of 'smart power', as Secretary Clinton calls it.
But they are not - yet - a true ally.
His push on Afghanistan of course would no doubt alienate Muslims.>>>
Muslims or not, it should alienate an American populace that cannot economically sustain a prolonged war on several fronts simultaneously. In the face of American fears for the economy and whether more wars are a good idea just now, what measures will be undertaken to grease the wheels of American support? Increased strategic Islamophobia, another "terrorist attack?" What? Particularly since israel is screaming in the press that "Iran's nukes" take precedence in importance over global economic stability. We are on the verge of something very unpleasant.
Sunshine, roses, strawberries, lollipops and teddy bears, Karen. Sunshine, roses, strawberries, lollipops and teddy bears. These are the things I think about when I am reminded of those unpleasant things we are on the verge of.
Oh, and blueberries, squishing between my fingers.
Oh, and blueberries, squishing between my fingers>>>
And candycanes and kittens and marble halva. Don't forget those.
Mmm... I haven't had marble halva in more than fifteen years...
Mmm... I haven't had marble halva in more than fifteen years...>>>
What??!! Are you mad? How can you live without marble halva?
Sohail, I am not justifying. Like I said in the point you liked: the US blaming the Pak government is like the kettle calling the you-know-who you-know-what. My point is that both the US and Pakistani establishments have been rather nasty and cynical in who and how they have acted in their foreign policy. Let me qualify that; the US and Pakistani military dictators supported into office and supported in their brutality and evil designs on the Pakistani people have been guilty. Our excuse, as Pakistanis, is that we didn't elect them--and, at least for myself and people I hang with politically and socially, opposed them tooth and nail--what's yours?
I brought up FDR specifically because it is easy to dismiss GW. Also Brezhinsky was Saint Jimmy's man, remember? The way the Afghan-Soviet Jihad was prosecuted was his and Zia's brainchild.
And, yes, I fault FDR. And I fault Brezhinsky and Carter. (Never mind George Shcultz, the Gipper and Charlie Wilson.) All you have to do to understand what Wahabism is, is to crack open Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom". You telling me patrician blue-boys like Franklin D hadn't read that book? And you yourself are taking the "Taliban Evil; we Americans never side with Evil" line; well, you did. And do.
I see your holier-than-thou and raise you a Pinochet, a Zia, an Ayub, a Musharraf, a Marcos, and a whole House of Saud.
Ok, here we go.
Wrong. I didn't say that. I did say the exact opposite of that:
As for the rest of it, I think you're still obfuscating. I said - and I quote - "But Pakistan is not a true ally. We cannot expect from them the things we would expect and ask of our allies."
The "WHY" "HOW" of this issue is a question to be asked when we start looking for solutions to the problems in Pakistan.
But until those problems are solved, Pakistan will not be a true ally of the United States. Treating them as such is foolish. Treating them as an ally implies - among other things - that today, right now, they would come to our defense should we need it. They wouldn't. It also implies that they would cease to give sanctuary to our enemies. They haven't. It implies that the majority of Pakistanis view us favorably. They don't.
I say it again. "Pakistan is not a true ally. We cannot expect from them the things we would expect and ask of our allies."
We should remedy that solution, and we should address the issues you've raised, but saying that Pakistan is currently an ally of ours is saying "Yeah, this guy is my pal. Ignore the fella hiding in his house, shooting at me. It's all good."
It's not.
Sohail, I know I am not in this debate, but there are a few comments I'd make on the sidelines. People need to distinguish between :governments," "nations," and "peoples." As you say, at any given moment there may be governments which, either sincerely or not, tacitly agree to adhere to US demands. At any given time the national sentiments and will of the people may be very much against the US and with good reason perhaps. You are right, US foreign policy and it's big siblings Great Britain and Russia before it have meddled disastrously with the developing status of non-western nations for over a hundred years. The people of those nations have every right to be roaring mad, even if their corrupt governments have allowed the parasite to drain them of their resources and allow them to be manipulated, as most startlingly illustrated in the example of the illfated Pahlavi "dynasty." Look at the US itself. There is no common and unified central idea and will of the people on any nation or group of nations. I would add another checkpoint to whether a nation is the ally of the US. Can its citizens travel freely within its borders without fear of attack and being taken hostage for political ends? Even in western countries, I have travelled frequently in Europe in the last few years and found on every trip that I am bombarded with nastiness of all kinds the minute I open my mouth and they hear my accent. But all I need to do is assure them that I was neither a supporter of the Bush administration and or an example of the beligerent and demanding "ugly American" and they do a 180 turnaround. The solution to the "Pakistan problem" as with all the other "problems" the US faces around the globe is not to be answered successfully with amilitary action but with an acknowledgement of wrongdoing in former epochs (we can allow the new administration to symbolically distance themselves from these epochs if they make substantial change) and a radical change in demeanor and intent in the world. The sad thing is that bullies seldom back down and go away and give the kids back the toys they stole. Usually, one of the kids has to get big enough to kick the bully's ass. Repeatedly I hear rhetoric to the effect that if we can just uproot Osama from his cave then all will be well in the world and we can all get back to singing kumbaya and holding hands. That is so naive and ill-informed of the historical facts leading up to where we are now that it shouldn't even be given the dignity of publication in the media, yet there it is. When in fact, the world is undergoing growing pains and a rough birth. This is a natural and I would suggest necessary process without which colonialism, imperialism, international bullyism and rape of people and their dignity will continue unabated. If some people need to put the face of an angry bearded man in a thobe fighting a righteous Christian soldier in a gray suit and crisp white shirt and tie on that conflict, well, whatever. It's like the guy who has a woman down on the sidewalk and his hand over her mouth saying .... I've only got my hand on her mouth because she won't stop screaming. Well duh!
Salaam iFaqeer ....
I'm interested in what your take is on the term "African American." First off, I have no political stake in any of these cultural terms people use but I am fascinated by them. Coming of age in the late '60s and learning my way around in the '70s, I came to view the term African American as a cultural marker for Americans who wished to acknowledge both their American citizenship as well as their African heritage as a thing to be proud of, naturally. But it always seemed to apply to American born individuals of African heritage and more and more it seemed to also imply certain other political and cultural positions. All fine. We don't often, but occassionally, see people referring to themselves as French American, Italian American, etc. Sometimes, but not with the same frequency and I have never referred to myself as a Norwegian American. But then as I say, I understand the desire, particularly in the '60s and '70s for saying hey, I am of African descent and that's a wonderful thing. I also recall being lectured by people of South American descent about the use of the word Latino and that it was 100% politically defined, with positions and political ideology etc and did NOT just mean someone of South American descent and most certainly did not mean someone from Spain. Nothing wrong with any of it, just these were the definitions I grew up with in California and learned at the knee of people whose parents eimigrated from Mexico and a variety of other places. Now, that term, Latino, Latina, has come to be a generic cath-all term for all people of Hispanic descent. Interesting transformation. I remember getting finger waving friendly reminders from Mexican immigrant grannies about NOT being a "Latina" but being Mexican. People must define their own identities and not have them assigned to them by anyone, particularly those looking for sheer numbers for solidarity. Solidarity with righteousness knows no color, race, or ethnicity. Long question here I know. But as an African born in Africa, how do you feel about that term, African American? I get a sense by your never using it in your son's presence. But what makes an African American these days, and for that matter, what the hell makes an "American" these days? I am an American because that's what my passport says, but I am not politically an American at all as my loyalty and agenda is for a healthy world with healthy, strong independent nations with no precedence or preference given to America or anywhere else. I ask myself these questions too when I see instances of rabid and vitriolic solidarity based solely on pink skin. I ask, what the hell does it mean? I know it means preferential treatment in a lot of places I wouldn't care to visit. But what does it mean in the minds of those who use it to create and get off on hatred and a very false sense of superiority? What are in all these terms we create and use to perpetuate our own feeling of superiority, whomever we may be, and enforce other's supposed inferiority?
You're not African American, you're a Desi.
Desis in Africa, even the Muslim Desis, rarely if ever intermarried with local Muslim Black populations.
They lived in separate communities, had separate lives, and often times lived more materially comfortable than their native African brothers and sisters.
The late Freddie Mercury, a gay Iranian rocker in the Western world, was born to Iranian parents in Zanzibar, a group of islands off the coast of Tanzania where Arab and African peoples have at times been at odds with one another.
I would not consider him an African Briton, he is an Iranian born in Africa, but to claim being an African American means you have a cultural affinity to a group of people who were enslaved, brought to this country involuntarily, who out of the ashes of destruction and cultural genocide created a new identity, one unique to the United States.
Desis on the otherhand, regardless if they settled in Bangkok or Jakarta, Nairobi or London, have had a way of preserving their ancestral culture, often times jealously guarding their culture, and resisting intermarriage.
You're not African American.
What makes him your brother and not George W. Bush?
He isn't Muslim, he's father was a non-practicing Muslim, and only his grandfather converted to Islam, not passing on his new found sense of religiosity to his offspring.
Obama did not reach out to Muslims, he made no appearances at a mosque in America, and members of his election campaign in Michigan reassigned two hijabis not to seat behind him in a television appearance.
So why did he have to declare anything regarding Islam when he isn't Muslim? Why won't this statement just die and move on? He isn't Muslim so he has nothing to say about the subject and he shouldn't have to. Like any other American, or person he has the right and the freedom to practice his "own" religion and not be pigeonhold by people who need a reason to dislike him that sounds legitiamte. He is a black man and we have discussed on this forum many times that Asians, Pakistani's and others first of all voted George Bush into office, that doesn't speak highly of Asians, second there is no relationship between Asians, Pakistani's and the Black community which includes Barack Obama his family and children and wife. The thing that probobly confuses Asians, is that he lived in Muslim countries as a child, and has Muslim relatives. That is not so unusual for Blacks and converts to Islam. So get off his nuts already about the Muslim thing. And so what he didnt' want Hijabi's sitting behind him? That;s his right, and what did he have to gain by having them there? Did he have buddist monks or jews with kippot there? Nope. We are talking politics here. And he is not stupid he knows how Muslims voted, you think he never saw a Pew report or any other voting statistics? I am not saying I think his actions were retaliatory but he is smart and has good advisors.
I wear hijab, but I am not mad at him and I can wait to find reasons, if they arise, to dislike him.
When I talk of Pakistan, you don't like that; when I try to engage with other parts of my formative influences you have a problem with that. I am starting to think what you have a problem with is a Pakistani admitting they are a Pakistani and not apologizing for it.
I did not say I am an African American; I said that my then 6-year old son felt kinship to Africa through my birth. He knows his mother is an Indian and his dad a Pakistani--and that his pet lizard is native to both of those countries and his pet "dragon" is native to South East Asia. And I am proud of him for paying attention to all of that. Neither he nor I (I guess I have to defend a 6-year old in your court, too) are trying to co-opt or claim the experiences, the 5/600 year history, or the heritage of African Americans. We are just saying we feel kinship--maybe not even as much as the Hawaiian-born Mr. Obama (I was actually born in Nigeria). But I will say that I know a thing or two about being the only person in a grade school class of my skin color and being made fun of at length for that.
As for whether GW is my brother or not; in that I stand with Cornell West; I try to find brotherly feeling with all. And I use commanilities. I have Hindu friends--you know those Indians you love?--and an Indian wife. In Obama's case, yes, I feel quite a few things drawing me. Like I said; I was following the only African American in the Senate before most Muslims in the US and make no apologies for that, either. And, yes, his father was an foreign grad student like I was; he was African, I was born in Africa. I make no apologies for that, either.
How rare it is indeed for Pakistani's to find any commonality with a person of color(darker). You are different than most, so I applaud you for that difference and for speaking on it. Good for you.
iFaqeer,
I don't love Hindus anymore than Muslims from the subcontinent.
I will say, I have often felt ostracized by Pakistanis in the mosque (here in America). Many that I have interacted with, have told me to basically "have a seat and be quiet." I have felt unwelcomed especially when I was in the Navy, and had a military crew cut and obviously looked like a "squid" (derogatory term for US sailor). I stopped going to the masjid due to the lack of hospitality.
In general, Muslim men, many unfortunately Pakistani in origin in my subjective experience have never said "Assalaamu aleikum" to me or even extended a hand and called me "akhi."
Regardless of where I went in the United States, I encountered the same situation.
However, I grew up with a national narrative, one that spoke of the dream of a "greater Afghanistan" which would include almost half of Pakistan's territory. This national narrative, at times illogical and unrealistic, like most nationalistic narratives, was a means of pride and I gained self-esteem through it.
It is like meeting a Palestinian who gets defensive when you state that suicide bombings are not sanctioned by Islamic jurisprudence. They will argue, as long as they are occupied and not allowed to return to their ancestral homes, they will fight.
For those with nothing to look forward to, violence and a premature death are sometimes the only attractive option.
I'm not sanctioning Muslim violence against civilian targets, but under international law, people under occupation have the right to exist.
However, rockets being fired on the Negev desert in Israel is counterproductive. Using mosques as artillery magazines is also equally disturbing.
India is no paradise, the tourism ad slogans of "Incredible India" gloss over the fact that 700 million Indians do not enjoy the material comforts of the middle class.
India has committed human rights violations in Kashmir and the Northeast (Assam, Nagaland, etc.). The violence in Mumbai has shown that law enforcement protection in India is extremely weak and ineffective, prone to corruption and bribes. India is a soft target for terrorism like Pakistan and Afghanistan, the security apparatus in the subcontinent is not prepared to handle the challenge of Islamist terrorism.
Ironically, South Asia is one of the major fronts of the growing tide of malignant Islamism.
Not all Islamism is bad, Turkey has an Islamist-led government in power now, but they are seeking EU membership and reforming their political system to be more acceptable to Brussels.
Akhi, forgive me!
My outbursts have not been productive, I intentionally provoked you. I was baiting you, now after what you have said, I'm sure despite our online fight, you would extend the obligatory greetings that a Muslim says to another Muslim.
Mai salaamah.
Lailah and I have had our disagreements, but we came to an understanding.