The author admits that the analogy is imperfect. The analogy does not work for me though I do not have the Pakistani experience to adequately judge (but I spent a lot of time in Korea during the period the author describes) though perhaps there are some lessons that do apply so I will keep an open mind. One thing my Korean friends tell me and I have heard very senior Korean officials and leaders say this is that Korea and the US really do have shared values and even though our too cultures are very different we have more shared values than we have significant differences. I cannot imagine Paksitani leaders saying such a thing and meaning it like our Korean allies do. But I will leave it to the Pakistani experts to judge the analogy.
V/R
Dave
December 21, 2012
By Arif Rafiq
While imperfect, America's experience with South Korea could provide important lessons on how to develop stronger ties with Pakistan.
It might be difficult to overestimate the iniquitousness of Korean pop star Psy's hit single“Gangnam Style.” From supermarkets in the United States to cricket matches in South Asia, “Gangnam Style” has been played and imitated a countless number of times. In an era of viral media, the song has proved to be a cultural epidemic.
“Gangnam Style,” though criticizing materialism in contemporary Korean society, is in many ways the de-facto theme song for Brand Korea, whose exports were once seen as second-rate, but now is giving its Japanese and American competitors a run for their money. Hyundai, Samsung, and K-Pop all signal the emergence of corporate Korea on the world stage. It is a transition that perhaps began with the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, but is reaching new heights today.
Americans were shocked to learn this month that Psy took part in anti-U.S. rallies in 2002 and 2004 and, in the latter incident, sang lyrics from another Korean band that exhorted his countrymen to “Kill those Yankees.” Not only is the anti-Americanism virulent, but, more generally, the expressly political nature of the lyrics is glaring. Psy contradicts the American stereotype of the apolitical, business or fun-only Asian. But beyond this stereotype, what the shock in the U.S. points toward is an unfortunate American tone-deafness toward the politics — especially the politics at the sub-elite level — of other countries.
Americans were largely unaware of the context of Psy’s past statements (for which he has since apologized). In the 2002 incident, he sang the anti-American lyrics in the midst of an anti-American phase in South Korea, sparked by the killing of two young Korean girls whom they overran with their armored vehicle. They were later acquitted by a U.S. military tribunal. This anti-American fever was also the byproduct of generational change in South Korea.
(Continued at the link below)
What might save America's relationship with Pakistan would be a better understanding of our decades long history with that country and region, an understanding that is strangely absent from this bizarrely static, status quo Washingtonian "South Asian analyst" punditry.
ReplyDeleteMost disappointing.
It quotes Imran Khan, and, yet, goes on to say we must do "everything," by having preferential trade deals or strengthening the tax base of the country.
But how can any outside nation do something like restructure the tax code and collection of another nation? We might be able to help around the edges, but it could easily backfire, whatever we do. In fact, that is usually what happened. IMF loans that kept the country on a hampster wheel of debt, aid money that ended up where it shouldn't have. That's the nature of meddling. When we supposedly "abandoned" the region, tons of money flowed in via the World Bank and from our NATO allies.
We've paid for every bit of disorder while saying the West and the US wants the opposite.
This is easily documented via, well, practically every serious study on the region.
Imran Khan himself says that Western aid should be avoided so that the nation of Pakistan can be truly independent and learn to govern itself in its own way.
Why is Mr. Rafiq misinterpreting the very people he is seeking to help Washington understand?
How is it, decades into one of our longest standing relationships, it's all such a mystery? We have a history there, you know, American reporters covered the British leaving and the split into two countries. We have our own historical evidence with which to "vet" other claims....and reviewing their work is not kind to the old Cold War US understanding, greatly influenced by our need to have bases for US planes and for staging insurgencies against the Soviet Union. Our AfPak strategy is too influenced by generations of Washingtonians used to a client relationship with the second half of "afpak." Ninety percent of it is basically propaganda.
Go back and read the difference between Eisenhower and Dulles on the matter, and then realize how "afpak" happened in the past ten years and how our longest war dragged on. Don't pay for both sides of it, maybe.
It's a waste of time to want a larger relationship than is possible. We are not the British with their Commonwealth, and have different security needs.
- Madhu
Er, sorry if that all came across as internet cranky.
ReplyDeleteMr (Dr?) Rafiq makes some good points but I tend to disagree with the overall prescriptions toward the end.
It's just that various diaspora have been watching this relationship for decades and decades. It seems strange that others wouldn't know what is common knowledge in various communities.
- Madhu
Did not come across as cranky to me. Some good insights. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteV/R
Dave