Troubling News
It was discouraging, Mr. Khan said, that the United States ignored the importance of the huge nonviolent protests by Muslims in Kashmir against Indian rule this summer. “Anywhere else [bold mine-DL], and they would have been hailed as an Orange Revolution,” he said, referring to the wave of protests that led to a change in the Ukrainian government in 2004. ~The New York Times
Not so! These things are hailed as “people power” revolutions in the West only if said revolution was against an Arab, pro-Russian or pro-Chinese regime. Otherwise, especially when they take place in Latin America, they are episodes in violent, anti-American mob rule. This can be a tricky distinction to keep in mind, but Washington has been nothing if not consistent in the way it anoints certain movements as democratic and denounces others as socialist tyranny.
On a more grim note, this article offers this troubling bit of news as well:
American military commanders, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the American war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors [bold mine-DL].
Mr. Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Pakistan to focus on the real threat — the Qaeda and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country.
The article then cites Obama’s FA essay, where he first stated his interest in the Kashmir dispute. While the article focuses on the reasons, real and imagined, why Pakistanis are fearful and suspicious of U.S. intentions, these details about Petraeus and Obama make clear that Pakistan is the last one that has anything to fear from the new administration. A larger problem, as the article makes clear, is that Pakistani paranoia about and hostility to the U.S., which has undoubtedly been exacerabted by years of backing Musharraf and the latest rounds of cross-border strikes, are entirely out of control. I’m not sure how Washington can reassure Pakistanis that we are not bent on partitioning the country. If some of the theories floating out there are widely shared, even an effort to resolve the Kashmir dispute would probably be greeted with derision as another part of the conspiracy.
But seriously, you’re happy it ain’t John McCain dealing with all this, ain’t ya, Daniel?
These things are hailed as “people power†revolutions in the West only if said revolution was against an Arab, pro-Russian or pro-Chinese regime.
I recollect the first widespread use of the phrase “people power” being the 1986 anti-Marcos rebellion/uprising/whatever.
Similarly the phrase was widely, if perhaps incorrectly, used of the May 1998 events leading up to Suharto’s resignation (or maybe, since the rioters often targetted ethnic Chinese, you were thinking of that as a revolution against a pro-Chinese regime).
Google hits on “people power” refer mostly to the Philipines.
Similarly, if by some confluence of events the Myanmar dissidents had managed in 2007 to overthrow the junta formerly known as the SLORC, I’m sure that would have been called “people power” too. The fact that the Myanmar junta is vaguely shielded by the PRC doesn’t make it a particularly “pro-Chinese” regime IMHO; certainly the oil concessions aren’t especially steered China’s way.
Of course I’m glad McCain isn’t handling any of this. That would be horrifying.