TheAgitator.com
Trade and Terror
Saturday, January 31st, 2004I’m about to go on a self-imposed weeklong hiatus from Bush bashing. Just to see if I can do it. But before I do, one last post.
My last two Fox columns have been critical of Bush, and as you might expect, email responses were overwhelmingly critical, though not all that convincing. Even the suppportive responses were along the lines of “I agree that spending is out of control, but Bush doesn’t play politics with national security, and that’s why I’m voting for him.”
I’m not so sure that’s the case. And The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait reminds me why. In a recent policy forum televised by C-SPAN, Chait points out that not long after September 11, just after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf pledged his support for our anti-terrorism efforts, he asked President Bush for a small favor in return. Musharraf asked that Bush lift U.S. tariffs on textiles coming from Pakistan. This, Musharraf said, would give him something to take back to the people of Pakistan. He could argue that in exchange for Pakistani support, Pakistanis might enjoy a better standard of living through access to U.S. markets.
But Bush said no, mainly to placate House Republicans in North and South Carolina. And Musharaff has faced multiple attempts on his life in the time since.
It would be foolish to suggest that had Bush lifted the tariffs, all would be hunky-dorey in Pakistan. But things certainly wouldn’t be worse. And there’s really no other way to look at the decision to hold the tariffs than as a political one — in this case, to preserve a few congressional districts at the expense of an extremely important ally, one who stuck his neck out for us. Or, you might say, at the expense of national security. Remember, if Musharaff goes down, militant Islam in all likelihood gets hold of its first nuclear arsenal.
It gets all the more frustrating when you consider that as a self-described “free trade president,” lifting tariffs is something that ought to be on Bush’s to-do list, anyway.
People should be rewarded for helping us out when we need help. But people should not be rewarded simply for giving us overflight rights, intelligence, and other necessities in battling Al Qaeda. That should be the expected bare minimum. They should be punished for the opposite. I didn’t see any Pakistani troops helping us out in Iraq like Poland and Japan.
Who’s taking bets on the actual amount of time the hiatus will last?
Someone needs to start a pool.
for pakistan to share intelligence & allow us flight privledges, especially when there is limited public support for doing so, is a significant gesture. if it’s not feasible to eliminate the textile tariff, they we should have at least offered pakistan something else in return.
“I didn’t see any Pakistani troops helping us out in Iraq like Poland and Japan.”
Probably because a) Pakistani people didn’t support the war, b) Pakistani military participation would have increased support for the fundamentalist parties, and c) bringing Pakistani troops to Iraq might include bringing over Al Qaeda sympathizers in their ranks.
We got what we wanted and we’re about to get more (with this latest invade Pakistan trial balloon). Sticks work better than carrots with some people. We don’t need to get into bidding wars like we did with the Turks.
Roach’s posts pretty much perfectly exemplify both (a) the Bush admin’s view of US foreign policy and (b) the reason why the US’s relationship with the rest of the world is increasingly strained.
shorter roach/gwb: if we want, we take AND we insist you help.
shorter rest of world: uh, why? what gives YOU the right to demand that WE waive our sovereignity? oh, those guns? well, you can have our [reluctant] cooperation this time, but next time, fuck off.
francis
This whole “yeah, Bush sucks on pretty much every issue but he’s *great* on national security so I have to vote for him” meme escapes me.
For one thing, regardless of whether invading Iraq was a good idea or not, I don’t know how anyone can find the post-war planning and subsequent mess we have on our hands nothing short of jaw-dropping incompetence. Then there’s the whole WMD fiasco. Obstructing the 9/11 commission. Coddling the Saudis. Etc. Etc.
That was quite a stretch to make the point that he is playing politics with national security. You said yourself even had the tariffs been lifted things would still be crazy in Pakistan. This is a trade issue not a national security issue. Pakistan was rewarded for assisting us by us lifting sanctions against them that had been there since they tested their nuke.
If Musharraf (and those in his government of like mind) went down and a radical faction took control of Pakistan India would not wait to jump in there and grab control of those nukes and I’m sure they would have the full support of the United States.
Dang good point re: India, Bobby — though I think it would be rather “leaky” in practice; I am concerned that the Islamofascists would get their hands on one or more operational nukes before India could assert control.
And, Francis, here is a more accurate description of foreign policy:
GWB — help us do the right thing.
World — we’ll do what we want, especially if it works against America, because we want to drag you down to our level of universal impotence. We fear your paper-shredding CEOs more than people-shredders like Saddam, Al Quada, and Hamas. Oh, and by the way, we need a little financial assistance.
Conjecture and speculation that there is a link between Musharaff’s close calls and his inability to get Bush to lift the tariffs. Prove it.
He did not imply a link, you inferred one, just because he said two things in chronological order.
“But Bush said no, mainly to placate House Republicans in North and South Carolina. And Musharaff has faced multiple attempts on his life in the time since.”
He even points out that it probably wouldn’t have solved Musharaff’s problems in Pakistan, but it might have helped.
The post was about playing politics with national security. Those who wish to do harm to Musharraf would not care one bit if he had opened a market to the United States. It might be good for his people and it might be good for free markets but it wouldn’t help his or our security.
Playing politics with trade, yes. Playing politics with security, no. At least not in this instance.
Although he discounted the importance, the link was implied. Otherwise where’s the point about national security.
The fact is, no one in blog land can “prove” anyone did anything at the expense of national security, just as no one can prove anyone is responsible in any way for the nation’s most grand national security failure of all, which happened on this administration’s watch.
It wont help when a group of people hate you, no matter what you do.
If you give the bully what he wants, he’s going to come back for more.
Debt Consolidation