Shadow of the Hegemon

If there is one enduring myth in our body politic, it is the omnipotence of American power. Although long suspected, the latest WikiLeaks have proved that senior politicians, officials and generals go to great lengths to ingratiate themselves with even junior American officials, ever ready to confide in them on the assumption that all roads to power go through Washington.

It is almost as if we are stuck in a time warp since 1990 where nothing has changed since the fall of communism and the triumph of the US. But history did not end, America’s trumpeted New World Order effectively collapsed in 1993 in the dust of the Somali civil war when the US was beaten off by ragtag militiamen. American dominance was soon challenged by a slew of contenders; the world became fragmented into nodes of regional influence as the unipolar world became multipolar.

With the onset of the financial meltdown of 2008, America’s decline seems particularly pronounced as it sinks in an ocean of debt and as China closes up fast, perhaps becoming the world’s largest economy as soon as 2030.

Why do none of these seismic shifts seem to register amongst the members of our power elite? America remains she who must be, eventually, obeyed. So while Pakistan grappled long and hard with a NWA offensive, the Davis affair and the drone campaign, the conclusion is never really in doubt. When our leaders feel really let down by the US, they tend to cast a hopeful eye on Beijing. But China is not always as forthcoming as Pakistan would wish. In the aftermath of the 2010 floods, China contributed a paltry $18 million in contrast to $690 million by the US. So whether Pakistan likes it or not, America remains ally numero uno as it has throughout its history.

But China is only the C of the BRICs (an amalgam of Brazil, Russia, India and China), economies with massive influence. Weaving a coherent policy towards the ‘others’ could be of enormous dividend in weaning of our unhealthy dependence on the US as dispenser of largesse.

There are also other avenues for progress; Africa is on the rise after being hobbled for so long. India is snapping at the heels of China in a new scramble for Africa. Armed with soft loans, India is making its presence felt while its conglomerates such as Tata and Airtel are making inroads in the burgeoning African market. Pakistan could replicate the process, albeit on a smaller scale.

But none of these possibilities seem to attract much interest in the corridors of power. The primary interest remains the long term strategy of the US in the region. One may assume that it is a simple matter of calibrating Pakistan’s foreign policy to ensure a better ‘power mix’, but the problem runs deeper.

The hold that America has over Pakistan is subtle. As Gramsci astutely outlines, hegemony is more elusive to trace than mere domination. He insists that the ruling class espouses many of the concerns of the lower classes to make its control more palpable. Interests become closely aligned as those who are ruled come to identify with a nation’s masters. It is a dynamic interaction between ruler and those they govern through consent.

It could be argued that a similarly convoluted relationship exists between Pakistan and the US in which interests are similarly blurred. How much are mutual interests really mutual? Clearly, Secretary Clinton feels your pain. In frequent visits, American officials evince great concern over Pakistan’s economic malaise and losses in the war on terror. In 1979, our leaders conjectured that the Soviet Afghan adventure was a prelude to wresting Balochistan. Our interests had ‘converged’ and not for the last time.

We are psychologically beholden to the Americans. When spurned, we sulk in silence until they call on us again. The roots are thick indeed. Our young officers are taught that nothing can better the F-16, despite the ancient basic design. The generals see continued access as a national imperative.

And when persuasion is not enough, there is cold steel beneath the velvet as the Americans proved when they brandished a threat to banish us to the Stone Age in 2001. Gramsci referred to this as the dual perspective combining force and consent. Americans intimate, but only when they can’t cajole us.

There are also cultural aspects to hegemony. As a result of globalisation, our elite are enmeshed by a global identity based on Western values, the pinnacle of which is embodied by America. So through many varied tendrils, we are bound in a hegemonic web. What is generally perceived as American strong-arming is only the tip of the iceberg.