Pervez Musharraf Vs. George Orwell

Summary: Mushy`s book reinforces the fact that Pakiland is a quasi-terrorist state and if given an option, it would elect a pro-islamic terrorist government...and the only thing standing between this outcome and reality is...drum roll..mushy...


Is terror Pakistan’s state brand?

By Babar Sattar

‘A RISING tide lifts all boats’, we were told recently at an International Trade Council meeting in Geneva. Building a good national brand and image facilitates economic development and thus the intense focus of countries to market themselves in a manner that is attractive to governments, businesses and intermediaries across the globe. ‘Incredible India’ is the brand being popularised by our neighbour, to establish its credentials not just as the ‘largest democracy of the world’ but as a magical place that offers extraordinary cultural and business opportunities. Through ‘Italy – Life in I Style’, the Italian government is trying to make the brand ‘Made in Italy’ synonymous to quality as well as style.

These days, individuals, firms, cities, regions, countries, and even continents all market themselves professionally, often through aggressive ”sales techniques”. Indeed, having a bad reputation or none at all is a serious handicap for a state seeking to remain competitive in the international arena. A state with a negative brand faces difficulties in attracting world’s economic and political attention. Image and reputation are thus becoming essential part of a state`s strategic equity. We talk about a state`s personality in the same way we discuss the products we consume, describing it as friendly, credible, pleasant or unreliable, hazardous or dangerous. A brand reflects a customer`s idea about a product. A state’s brand is a total sum of the outside world`s ideas about a particular country.

Globalisation and the media revolution have made each state more aware of itself, its image and reputation or its brand. What is Pakistan’s brand ? Here, General Musharraf has produced In the Line of Fire which brags about the fact that Pakistan’s president holds ‘the world’s most dangerous job’. The book brings a renewed focus on Pakistan as a hotbed of terrorist activity. One wonders why the general needed to produce a 352-page memoir focusing largely on his fight with terrorism in Pakistan and beyond at a time when seldom a minute goes by that the country is not mentioned in the context of the war on terror by the world media. Even as the Musharraf regime was gloating over its effort in foiling a major terror plot to blow up planes using liquid bombs a couple of months back, political analysts on international networks continued to take jibes at Pakistan for somehow being linked to all terror plots/plotters.

‘In the Line of Fire’ is a continuation of Musharraf regime’s long-standing branding and marketing strategy for himself and for Pakistan. The title itself underscores the status of Pakistan as part of the problem of terrorism confronting the ‘civilised world’, and Gen Musharraf as the solitary warrior combating the scourge of terror. Pakistan is widely perceived in the West as a quasi-terrorist state where a truly representative system would rein-in a Taliban-style fundamentalist government. And the general is seen as the last glimmer of hope standing between Pakistan and Talibanisation, whose fall would remove the last obstacle preventing extremism from taking charge of Pakistan.

Jon Stewart was only reflecting this widely shared US perception when he asked Gen Musharraf on his Daily Show who -- President Bush or Osama Bin Laden -- was likely to be elected to the Mayor’s Office in Karachi if those were the two candidates competing in an election. How Pakistan has come to be branded as a problem state by the US and the western world is not simply an inadvertent consequence of the events taking place since 9/11. It is partly a by-product of Gen Musharraf’s self-promotion campaign in the US that positions him as the only liberal force in Pakistan capable of halting Pakistan’s drift into obscurantism.

The role of effective strategising and posturing can never be underestimated in politics, and Gen Musharraf has undoubtedly established himself as a PR guru. Unfortunately he has marketed himself in a manner that he continues to look good so long as his country remains the ‘world’s most dangerous place’. Musharraf’s political and marketing strategy is based on an apt understanding of US interests and goals in the region and the amoral hierarchy of such interests. Winning the war on terror is America’s top priority that trumps all other goals, including strengthening and exporting democracy as a long-standing political goal or opposing the denial of civil liberties by national governments as a humanitarian goal.

The US has learnt from recent history that in today’s highly polarised world democracy is not synonymous with capitalist, liberal, pro-western governments. And Iran and Venezuela are the cases in point. The last thing US wishes Pakistan to produce is a homegrown Ahmedinejad or Chavez. Thus, so long as the US continues to believe that a genuine democracy might bring into power a populist anti-US government in Pakistan, which is likely to impede the US war on terror in Afghanistan and around the globe, Musharraf regime will continue to be seen as the only force in Pakistan capable of being a US ally during its war against terror.

But it is not the fear of emergence of a populist anti-US government alone that accounts for America’s unqualified support for the general. The US is cognisant of Pakistan army’s superiority over all other state institutions and has long maintained direct institutional links with the military even at the cost of undermining representative institutions in Pakistan. The US understands that even during democratic interludes, Pakistan’s security policy (including the nuclear policy) as well as foreign policy vis-à-vis important countries such as India, China, Iran, Afghanistan and the US, fell within the exclusive domain of the military.

The US needs Pakistan army to do its bidding in the war on terror. Giving up the longstanding policy of expediency and support for Musharraf in favour of a principled pro-democracy policy towards Pakistan offers no immediate dividends. The US is also aware of Pakistan military’s decisive influence over all aspects of national life and realises that as long as it wishes to be in business with Pakistan, it will need to work with Pakistan army and the army chief. And Gen Musharraf knows that the US would not disturb this power equation. He also knows that the moment a new army chief is sworn in, there will be another viable option for the US to do business with. Little wonder, the general views the loss of his uniform as an irreparable damage to his bargaining position with domestic politicians as well as the US.

The warm Musharraf-US relationship is likely to continue as long as the US maintains its current approach in pursuing its war on terror continues. Any attempt to reform societies by force and planting there alien brands of democracy that can produce predictable pro-US regimes in Muslim countries will not produce lasting results if the deep-rooted causes of violence and extremism are ignored.

What is also bewildering is why our mainstream political parties led by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif do not seem to understand the fundamentals of the US-Musharraf relationship, how it aids the immediate-term interests of the US and the Musharraf regime and why it is unlikely to change despite their exhibition of unreserved loyalty to the US. No amount of lobbying or pleading will convince the Bush administration about the need for offering patronage to civilian political forces in Pakistan so long as the institutional balance within the country stays titled strongly in favour of the military. The mainstream political parties need to fight their political battles within the country and not in Washington, and if Chavez and Ahmedinejad have one worthy lesson to offer, it is that no amount of external assistance is a replacement for genuine public support.

Pakistan must start investing in the development of a national brand that reflects the genius of its people and projects the country as an engine of economic growth for the region and the world. But a marketing strategy in itself is worth nothing if there is no genuinely decent product to sell. We need to fight the forces of obscurantism and despotism within the country that have caused the world to view Pakistan as a sanctuary for terror. As a nation we are not religious extremists secretly chanting prayers for Osama bin Laden and as a polity we are not eagerly awaiting our first opportunity to vote a Taliban-style religious government into power. Unfortunately the world is unlikely to realise any of this while reading In the Line of Fire.

#80 by zeemax on October 15, 2006 0:58am PT



Hahaha ... Kashmir Banega Pakistan ... do it quickly please.


Take the Kashmir-challenge...

If Indian Kashmir is part of Pakistan on 1st Jan, 2011, I`ll convert to Islam...

If it hasn`t beanegaed Pakistan, you`ll eat ham and drink a fosters beer every friday of the year...

deal?

#81
Since other posters are free to post personal remarks about me, I will reply to such remarks as and when I please. If ``everyone`` has a problem with that, so be it.

sadna/mantolives

Will you two please shut up? Your incessant bickering and he said-she said is driving everyone up the wall.

“You want to hang him? Go ahead and hang him ... this nation will go up in flames``

(Farooq Abdullah told the CNN-IBN news channel.)

Hahaha ... Kashmir Banega Pakistan ... do it quickly please.

Sadna...

You say you are not interested in posting anything about Musharraf`s book, but you`ve been posting thread after thread about him for the past three weeks. Isn`t that ironic?

In any event, we still don`t understand why Aisha and I have to agree with each other on everything. In any event, it is clear that you didn`t even bother to read the article or your comprehension of simple English is rather lacking, which makes Aisha`s description of you in 29 all the more accurate.

The root of all evils in any debate is 1. misdirection or deliberate misinterpretation of what another person says and 2. personalizing dissent. You are not setting a very good example for the lesser maccacas in both respects.

manto and mrs manto can continue this circle-jerk of self-delusion all they want bu the facts don`t change.

The world associates India with IT and an ancient culture.
The world associated Pakistan with Islamic terrorism..

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#75 by ballukhan on October 14, 2006 6:25pm PT

For pakis, normal relations means India hands over Kashmir to them and in return, they promise to be India`s friends...

thanks....but no thanks...

Re: # 69

``is his misguided effort to `normalize` relations .``

Agreed.......................he tried to `normalize` the relationship of ``Pakistan-in-a-state-of-unending-war-with-India`` by pumping more resources into Jehadi infrastructure first with Kargil and then executing more terror attacks into Indian mainland.............. it is his perverse view of what `normal` relations with India means that gets exposed in his book...............

hamidm2 #various
I haven`t expressed any opinion on the book or Musharraf on this thread and have no interest in doing so. I posted what the author`s husband said connecting the book and its author to myself and I told her to have a word with him. When people write stuff about me, I have the right of reply because in case you didn`t notice, the Mughal sultanate is dead.

The root of all evils in any debate is 1. misdirection or deliberate misinterpretation of what another person says and 2. personalizing dissent. You are not setting a very good example to your juniors in both respects.

Re: # 68

ahmedmadani, ROFL.. looks like you and arjun share a relationship..

LOL

nasah ji, hamidm2 is so fine a contributor that he is entitled to spicing up the conversation. Even by his catchphrase ``horrible Hindoos`` he means no harm. :)

Re: # 70

nasah,

macacas, langurs and capuchins might belong to the same gene pool, but in the wild you will never see them peacefully swinging from the same tree and sharing berries - it is the law of nature ......... the deep-rooted animosity of the macacas towards the langurs because of their inability to accept the fact that the langurs want their own berry tree, makes peaceful coexistence impossible in the forseeable future ....... and being the direct descendents of hanuman, the macacas have more experience with monkey business, which puts the langurs at a disadvantage ...........

..... maybe if the langurs stopped acting like capuchins dancing to the tune of various organ grinders, they might have a chance ............

``my biggest beef with musharraf - .....................- is his misguided effort to `normalize` relations with primates ..........``(hamidm)

what happened -- when this epiphany arrived....for the member of the same gene pool?

please do not feed the monkeys

....... my biggest beef with musharraf - other than the fact that there is everything wrong with a man in unifrom running the country - is his misguided effort to `normalize` relations with primates ..........

.......... remember when the indian cricket team accompanied by frau sadna`s male alter ego, vereesh mian, went to defile the land of the pure ?......... at that time i had said that nothing good would come out of letting in these ... these .... monkeys into the country (at that time the world had not discovered george allen) ........ monkeys are a nuisance - they are mean spirited, cunning and wicked, they crap all over the place, they eat some of their feces and hurl the remainder at passersby, they screech (specially the females) and are infested with fleas ..........

........ we created pakistan so that we could get away from the knife-in-armpit bania because we knew that we couldn`t trust him .......... then what was musharraf thinking ? ........... you throw a monkey a peanut and more than likely he will attack you, try to grab the whole bag and then gouge out your eyes ! ......... it is the nature of the beast ....... and if you don`t believe me, then just look at the picture of the man posted by bj - would you trust your niece with him ?


ylh zindabad !