General Musharraf’s recent declaration of a state of emergency and suspension of Pakistan’s national Constitution recasts another scepter of doubt over America’s foreign policy. Throughout Gen. Musharraf’s rule, America supportively aided his government – viewed as a key American ally in combating terror – often with monetary aid.
This situation exacerbates the problems Pakistan faces. A few weeks ago, Newsweek’s cover story proclaimed Pakistan, not Iraq, as the most dangerous country in the world. Accordingly, with the public increasingly dissatisfied with Gen. Musharraf’s rule and Pakistan’s emergence as a safe haven for terrorist activities, the consequences should Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry fall into the wrong hands will be disastrous.
These events highlight the dilemma of international relations. Unpredictable as relations between countries are, America’s staunch support to her allies does not guarantee that they will always heed our advice.
And what if America’s actions are fundamentally wrong?
David Brooks, the esteemed New York Times columnist, remarks that humanity’s conflicts essentially classifies into two prominent ideas. The first strand believes that nations are “riven by deep cultural divides,” as differences in language, religion and attitudes polarize. According to this logic, a state should not interfere with another sovereign nation’s internal problems. Instead, countries with their unique narratives of history, people and cultures understand their problems best to find their own solutions.
Many experts attribute our prolonged dilemma in Iraq to this problem – we initially knew too little about a war we entered. Thus, we became entangled when the establishment of one group over another led not to instant collaboration, but to overdue revenge.
The other school of thought advocates a belief that the human community essentially upholds “shared, universal values.” As humans essentially are the same biological species with the same wants and needs, this thought champions the importance of embracing common values, such as the right to free speech. Policies based upon this ideal emphasize active intervention, negotiation, outreach or, in extreme cases, military deployment to spread these virtues.
The latter thought has often characterized America’s foreign policy, as policymakers believe that our intervention is ultimately beneficial. By actively promoting and facilitating the process of diplomacy and international development, we empower other nations with the tools to grow as independent actors. Consequently, not only do we make America safer, we make the world a better place to live.
In basing our foreign policy on this ideal, though, that disagreements occur. The extent of our intervention is frequently a source of contentious conflict with other nations. When a former Malaysian Prime Minister famously rebuked America for acting as the “police of the world,” he was undoubtedly voicing his own opinions, but his words resonated loudly with others.
Nations, unless explicitly ask for help, might justifiably disdain international interference. Congress, for instance, often criticizes the Chinese government for their continual arms trade with the Sudanese regime, despite the Sudanese governments’ involvement in human genocide. Yet it isn’t driven by the intent of killing people that China continues to engage in the trade. It is about a different philosophy.
China believes that nations begin from the smallest units. Literally translated, the Chinese characters “guo jia” means a “country home.” These characters symbolize the importance of family stability – for, according to this belief, someone who cannot govern his own house is unfit to rule a nation. Because a country starts with the smallest units – culminating in the nation – countries facing problems are deemed missing this crucial link. Thus, a nation will achieve progress only when they start building on from the family.
Until we start understanding each other, we’ll keep repeating the same mistakes.Questions? Comments? Email ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu.
