April, said T S Eliot, was the cruellest month because it bred lilacs out of the dead land, mixing memory with desire. He was right. April can be deceptive. As I sit and write this, with a view of the Potomac from my hotel window, the sun shining, it seems April likes Washington DC. This town blossoms in April but just as Eliot noted, the land seems dead to the multiple realities that haunt the world, or at least oblivious to the fact that history marches in multiple ways, making the lone and level sands stretch far away.
I arrived two days after Lt-Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha had a meeting with CIAs Leon Panetta, the secret mission about which my Afghan cabbie driving the Washington Flyer taxi service asked me! Pakistans ICI [sic!] chief is here? he said to me after he had struck the essential cabbie conversation with me and asked where I was from. ISI, I corrected him. So, relations are not very good, eh? he asked. Having just gone through, as always, the B review area at Dulles, I couldnt but mumble agreement.
He had come to the States 18 years ago, a Pashtun from Afghanistans north. Despite Aprils blossoms in Washington DC, he didnt seem particularly hopeful about Afghanistan and spoke with a sense of despair and resignation. Why should he be interested, I wanted to know, given he had no stakes left there. But I realised, even as I asked the question, that I was wrong. Diasporas in this land become meaningful when homeland is prospering. India is a good example.
But while Gen Pasha was somewhere out there working out the details of Pakistan-US intelligence relations, I was driving to the hotel to attend the US-Islam World Forum, convened by the Saban Centre at the Brooking Institution and funded by Qatars government. The emphasis this time was on changes sweeping the Middle East. How would Egypt look like now; Yemen; Tunisia; Bahrain. And yes, what about Libya? Syria? (Question: Is Qatar a democracy?)
At the plenary Bottom-Up Change: Civil Society, Youth, and Entrepreneurship, moderated by Riz Khan, everyone seemed to laud the process of democratisation. The three Arabs on the panel, a blogger and human rights activist from Egypt, Tunisias Minister of Finance, an Egyptian-American professor from Drew University, hailed the changes taking place even as they argued that it is a larger process that subsumes in it multiple processes. Spoiler alert: everyone beware of uncertainties.
The American side, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, as also Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Centre and twice US ambassador to Israel, were more concerned about figuring out what those uncertainties could be and how could they impact US security and other concerns when they begin to play out. Legitimate, Id say. Democracies can be dicey.
Should the West help; would it be better for the Arab people to guide this process through; can there be a partnership, the people taking charge of their destinies with the West standing by to help, some kind of indigenous-external partnership; could jobs be created and economies put back on track; would that matter; what about the Iz-lay-mists (they always seem to lurk somewhere in the shadows); are Libya and Syria ultimately going to see a Romania-style bloody change; and yes, how would all this impact the only functioning democracy in the Middle East i.e., Israel?
I sat there thinking about the ironies. I later asked an American participant if America would be so interested in a democratic Middle East were the regimes still intact and it was business as usual. Or if Syria, where the regime survives still, were to become pro-US overnight? Would the US pressure the Assad family to open up or at least restructure, now that democracy has hit the Middle Eastern shores? He tried to hedge so I left it at that, realising that inter-state relations are not about honesty and morality. Thucydides was right; the Melian Dialogue stays with us, mankinds curse, its Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.
But this is precisely why states have to watch out for themselves, the smaller ones both bandwagoning and balancing. That too is the lesson of history, quite often forgotten by those who want to banish the serpent and recreate Eden. They forget that the US (or for that matter any bigger power) tries, through hard and soft power, to keep the world locked because freezing the current configuration is to its advantage. Others play ball or challenge it, or will, because serial time cant be ahistorical and what is not ahistorical always changes. And the process of change, when a pax is being challenged, can be bloody and long.
There was a moment of sorts, in the Middle East madness, in the smallest room where we sat to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan, the worlds biggest problem as I noted. It was supposed to be a glimpse from the ground and the ground in this region can be pretty slippery. That was also obvious from what was being said. Should America stay or leave; should President Barack Obama have openly talked about draw down; is the US moving towards Joe Bidens counterterrorism-plus strategy; would it work; is the fight against the Taliban or Al Qaeda; is it even right to make that distinction etcetera.
Too many questions, very few answers. No one likes the Ts but what does one do if they refuse to go away and make it easier for everyone, especially Afghan women? Maybe women are suffering precisely because legend says the woman fell to the serpents temptation and then the man fell to hers. Seems like at this level, the myth rises in support of hardnosed strategy!
The Afghan woman speaker, more American than Afghan, wanted the US to stay on because institutions need to be built. Right! Gullibility can induce much stupidity but funding sales pitches in conflict environments can result in more tragedy. It is easy to talk about institutions in Afghanistan when the setting is right, the Potomac is close by, the hotel expensive and the flowers in Washington blooming. I was reminded of the Afghan cabbie.
Eliot was right. Winter keeps us warm and covers Earth in forgetful snow.
The writer is Contributing Editor, The Friday Times.
