The dance of courtesans

Geography dictated America’s choice. As the US got ready to make Afghanistan safe for democracy — by first razing everything to the ground, the same process that we are seeing at work in Iraq — contiguity to Afghanistan is what it wanted, something which in the best measure only Pakistan could provide. India’s chagrin at its advances being ignored (not rejected) should not be hard to imagine. Hell hath no fury — you get the picture.

The US is facing a much trickier situation in Iraq, the occupation and policing of Iraq proving far more difficult than anyone around Secretary Rumsfeld’s war table had envisioned. So difficult in fact that the number one problem before the US right now is not to undermine the ayatollahs, contain North Korea’s nuclear programme or discover weapons of mass destruction. All these can wait. The most urgent problem is recruiting soldiers for hire, mercenaries who can do its dirty work in Iraq. Thus freeing the US military from a task beginning to tax its fortitude and resolve.

Colin Powell has gone to the extent of asking Bangladesh for hired soldiery, the US capable of any stooping in a jam. While the BD reaction is not known, the two great republics of India and Pakistan have left few doubts about where they stand.

It is not just that they are willing; they seem desperate to be taken on board. Pakistan’s soldier-president being under no obligation to consult anyone — this being the beauty of one-man rule — has said in no uncertain terms that Pakistan was ready to send troops, for which read mercenaries, to Iraq. His only condition is the UN flag or the auspices of the OIC or the Gulf Cooperation Council. In other words, he is not objecting to the thing in principle. The willingness part is thus settled. He just wants the proper fig leaf.

India’s position is not much different. Through winks and nods the BJP government has signified its readiness to perform guard duty in Iraq. In this it has the support of big business which thinks that with troops in Iraq, India’s chances of winning fat ‘reconstruction’ contracts would improve. But there is stiff domestic opposition to the idea of pandering to American wishes. Since the Indian government lacks the advantage of Pakistan’s soldier-president who has to consult only his own wishes, a decision on this issue appears to be stalled. However, when it comes to bartering individual or national honour, the key thing is the initial willingness.

This summer then there should be no spectacle more fascinating than our two republics looking silly on the question of Iraq. Here’s the whole world saying the Americans have got themselves into a quagmire and a mess. And here India and Pakistan, fretting to beat each other at the game, and ignoring every aspect of honour or long-term interest, are itching to fling themselves into the same mud. Courting universal ignominy for a stash of dollars: more than being impressed, even our American friends are likely to be bemused.

Far from smarting at Indian competition, Pakistan should feel happy it has someone to give it company. All the more so when who should be giving it company but high-minded India. Trafficking in the same goods, vying for the same favours, walking up and down the same promenade. Welcome to the club.

Meanwhile of course, the Camp David spectacle is behind us. Ah, what to make of it. Our talent for selling ourselves cheap is by now so well established that it’s no use crying. Three billion dollars over five years — which comes to about $600 million a year, divided equally between military and economic lollipops. This is such a damp squib, such an anti-climax to the pre-Camp David hype and hoopla, that even Pakistani officialdom has been reduced to incoherent muttering if not embarrassed silence.

The story line never varies. Pakistani leaders, right from the Republic’s infancy, have always fallen for morsels of comfort from the US, small certificates of approval which very briefly puff up their insecure egos. Not that Musharraf’s usefulness is over.

By God, what sentry duty, what yeoman service, the Pakistani military is performing along the Afghan border. The American military command has only to murmur something and a loud clicking of heels can be heard all across the mountains.

But aren’t we getting paid for our pains and our smart snapping to attention? We are but, in truth, not much. Our load is heavy, our recompense small. Actually, for no real fault of the Americans because right at the beginning Pakistan’s military rulers surrendered whatever leverage they could have exercised. Leverage comes from a gift deferred or a gift left hanging in anticipation. It is the prospect of what you can give that defines your worth and sets a price on your expected cooperation. But when the gift — in this case, Pakistani assistance — is delivered without any questions asked, precious little leverage remains. But perhaps the whole point of such excursions as the visit to Camp David has more to do with form than substance — with symbolism rather than tangible benefits.

Many Third World leaders feel themselves blessed when they get a pat from an American president, feeling their standing at home enhanced. It never works like this and when storm waters rise no amount of American backslapping is enough by itself to rescue a leader in trouble. But Pakistani leaders, prey to infantile notions, have always felt otherwise and if Musharraf is proving to be no exception, if he feels washed and revivified by his helicopter flight to Camp David, who’s to blame him? (Courtesy: Dawn)