By Ejaz Haider
We know you are great folks; but we also know you have this penchant, like others, us included, of screwing things up badly. The difference: you are big so you screw up big time. Thats a big difference indeed!
I have a suggestion for American officials in Pakistan: please dont hold large, public receptions and/or functions. Your security requirements, genuine for the most part, do not fit in with the idea of reaching out, which I assume is the reason for holding such functions. Also, frankly, given that such functions only beget the elites of a city, the most useless and dysfunctional part of Pakistan, reaching out falls way short of its desired objective anyway.
Heres why I say this.
I just returned halfway from the July 3 reception arranged for Lahores upper crust by Brian Hunt, the outgoing Principal Officer of the US Consulate in the city. Brian, like most Americans, is a great guy and host, fun to be with, and someone who likes to feel and wear the local culture. (I cant recall the last time I saw him in a western suit, clad as he always is in shalwar-qameez and Peshawari chappal!)
But, and I feel sad saying this, like most Americans, he too has to bear the cross of official US policies and their consequences. Not just that, being an official, he has to defend them!
One consequence of those policies is that today the Americans and the rest of the world, specifically Pakistan, are much less secure than they were when 9/11 happened. If there is one benchmark on which to judge the success of what has happened since then, and to monetise that, is THIS we are far less secure.
I have often enjoyed Brians hospitality. He is leaving and I have got at least one invitation already to a dinner in his honour. Personally, I would have loved to stop by his house, put him in my car and go to a coffee place before he leaves but that is not possible. He can be a target.
Thats where the problem begins; that dilemma also informs our existence today. That is also why I said I went to the July 3 reception halfway. I couldnt turn towards his house because, as I was informed by a traffic warden, the entire area had been secured. And when I say secure, it means secure. My driver was to drop me at a designated spot from where I was to board a shuttle that would take me to Brians house.
Hmm. I thought for a while. Do I want to do this? After all, more and less security is a constant debate. Under some circumstances, security is like an inverted bell: you have to go down to go up.
Sure, but no. Id rather go and pour myself a stiff dram without this hassle of the inverted bell than go through this security exercise, its genuineness or otherwise notwithstanding. I only wish the invitation card had mentioned this procedure; I wouldnt even have gone halfway!
THEREFORE, I shall publicly apologise to Brian for missing out on his hospitality yesterday and ALSO staying away from todays Jazz concert. The idea of mixing pleasure and security, even in todays world, doesnt appeal to me.
Let me assert once again. There is a threat. What needs to be debated is not THAT but the requirements, conflicting, of reaching out while remaining secure. Is it possible to keep secure and reach out? Beyond a point, no.
It is easy for America to create chaos; less easy to put up with the consequences of it. One way of doing it is to shed the pretence. For instance, America and the Americans (at least the officials) can say that we are prepared to do what it takes to secure Americas interests, core or peripheral, and we are not interested in this lib-lab exercise about winning hearts and minds. Makes perfect sense to me.
But if I am told that we (the Americans) are fighting savage wars of peace but we are also benign spirits out to win hearts and minds, then, to quote Shania Twain, That dont impress me much unless the Americans are prepared, like the British imperialists, to ride the horse into hostile territory, learn the language, translate great local works into English, and quite often, get killed in the process, the last being a built-in hazard of imperialist outreach and reaching out.
I dont think turning the US embassy into Fort Knox or putting in place elaborate security procedures for a July 3 reception to haul Lahores glitterati from a designated spot to Brians house can really be described as an exercise in reaching out, even if we were to factor out the bigger and more troublesome problem of winning hearts and minds. That incidentally would require an American official to go to Mozang or Gawalmandi to have machhi or nihari! Not a chance.
In fact, if we go by this scheme of things, whats next, a Pakistan-based, US-monitored U-Haul service for the next reception? (And no, theres no lesbian reference here!)
Let me revisit my earlier advice. Forget this, my friends. Why even bother? We know you are great folks; but we also know you have this penchant, like others, us included, of screwing things up badly. The difference: you are big so you screw up big time. Thats a big difference indeed!
A disclaimer: this is not an analysis; I know about security requirements so no point defending them. The point is different. If its not clear so far, it wont be even if I tried further.
The issue of how secure you will be, and by extension how secure we and the rest of the world will be, will not be decided at and by these receptions but by how quickly you heed the lessons of the last eight years. Until then, lets meet in small groups, very small ones, where security is manageable.
As for winning hearts and minds, lets not kid ourselves.
Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk
We know you are great folks; but we also know you have this penchant, like others, us included, of screwing things up badly. The difference: you are big so you screw up big time. Thats a big difference indeed!
I have a suggestion for American officials in Pakistan: please dont hold large, public receptions and/or functions. Your security requirements, genuine for the most part, do not fit in with the idea of reaching out, which I assume is the reason for holding such functions. Also, frankly, given that such functions only beget the elites of a city, the most useless and dysfunctional part of Pakistan, reaching out falls way short of its desired objective anyway.
Heres why I say this.
I just returned halfway from the July 3 reception arranged for Lahores upper crust by Brian Hunt, the outgoing Principal Officer of the US Consulate in the city. Brian, like most Americans, is a great guy and host, fun to be with, and someone who likes to feel and wear the local culture. (I cant recall the last time I saw him in a western suit, clad as he always is in shalwar-qameez and Peshawari chappal!)
But, and I feel sad saying this, like most Americans, he too has to bear the cross of official US policies and their consequences. Not just that, being an official, he has to defend them!
One consequence of those policies is that today the Americans and the rest of the world, specifically Pakistan, are much less secure than they were when 9/11 happened. If there is one benchmark on which to judge the success of what has happened since then, and to monetise that, is THIS we are far less secure.
I have often enjoyed Brians hospitality. He is leaving and I have got at least one invitation already to a dinner in his honour. Personally, I would have loved to stop by his house, put him in my car and go to a coffee place before he leaves but that is not possible. He can be a target.
Thats where the problem begins; that dilemma also informs our existence today. That is also why I said I went to the July 3 reception halfway. I couldnt turn towards his house because, as I was informed by a traffic warden, the entire area had been secured. And when I say secure, it means secure. My driver was to drop me at a designated spot from where I was to board a shuttle that would take me to Brians house.
Hmm. I thought for a while. Do I want to do this? After all, more and less security is a constant debate. Under some circumstances, security is like an inverted bell: you have to go down to go up.
Sure, but no. Id rather go and pour myself a stiff dram without this hassle of the inverted bell than go through this security exercise, its genuineness or otherwise notwithstanding. I only wish the invitation card had mentioned this procedure; I wouldnt even have gone halfway!
THEREFORE, I shall publicly apologise to Brian for missing out on his hospitality yesterday and ALSO staying away from todays Jazz concert. The idea of mixing pleasure and security, even in todays world, doesnt appeal to me.
Let me assert once again. There is a threat. What needs to be debated is not THAT but the requirements, conflicting, of reaching out while remaining secure. Is it possible to keep secure and reach out? Beyond a point, no.
It is easy for America to create chaos; less easy to put up with the consequences of it. One way of doing it is to shed the pretence. For instance, America and the Americans (at least the officials) can say that we are prepared to do what it takes to secure Americas interests, core or peripheral, and we are not interested in this lib-lab exercise about winning hearts and minds. Makes perfect sense to me.
But if I am told that we (the Americans) are fighting savage wars of peace but we are also benign spirits out to win hearts and minds, then, to quote Shania Twain, That dont impress me much unless the Americans are prepared, like the British imperialists, to ride the horse into hostile territory, learn the language, translate great local works into English, and quite often, get killed in the process, the last being a built-in hazard of imperialist outreach and reaching out.
I dont think turning the US embassy into Fort Knox or putting in place elaborate security procedures for a July 3 reception to haul Lahores glitterati from a designated spot to Brians house can really be described as an exercise in reaching out, even if we were to factor out the bigger and more troublesome problem of winning hearts and minds. That incidentally would require an American official to go to Mozang or Gawalmandi to have machhi or nihari! Not a chance.
In fact, if we go by this scheme of things, whats next, a Pakistan-based, US-monitored U-Haul service for the next reception? (And no, theres no lesbian reference here!)
Let me revisit my earlier advice. Forget this, my friends. Why even bother? We know you are great folks; but we also know you have this penchant, like others, us included, of screwing things up badly. The difference: you are big so you screw up big time. Thats a big difference indeed!
A disclaimer: this is not an analysis; I know about security requirements so no point defending them. The point is different. If its not clear so far, it wont be even if I tried further.
The issue of how secure you will be, and by extension how secure we and the rest of the world will be, will not be decided at and by these receptions but by how quickly you heed the lessons of the last eight years. Until then, lets meet in small groups, very small ones, where security is manageable.
As for winning hearts and minds, lets not kid ourselves.
Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk
