US House move implications

THE day after I arrived in Boston for a family visit, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution by 368-7 votes, asking the Biden administration to examine the state of democracy in Pakistan, particularly in the context of last February’s general elections and allegations of malpractices.

With the November presidential election in the US now in sharp focus for the Biden administration and the Democratic Party, the resolution is unlikely to get the sort of attention that it would normally have received.

This was underlined by the debate between President Joe Biden and his challenger and former president Donald Trump. The debate, during which the incumbent sometimes lost coherence and lapsed into slurred speech, sent shivers down the spines of the Democrats, who began to question the health of their own candidate.

For his part, the challenger may have been more fluent, but he also repeated the usual quota of half-truths and outright lies, and seems to have drifted into no-man’s land. Based on the performance of both men, it appeared clear to many that whosoever won the two-horse race, their administration may well end up being run by influential and powerful backroom advisers and aides.

Any pressure by Congress would take months to manifest itself in policy, if at all, after the winner takes office in January next year.

Therefore, any pressure by Congress, for example, on Pakistan, would take months to manifest itself in policy, if at all, after the winner takes office in January next year. While this may be welcome news for the current Pakistan government, it must consider two facts in its policy response.

The first is obviously the margin by which the resolution was carried. The 368-7 vote indicated it enjoyed bipartisan support. There are very few areas where House Republicans and Democrats agree, and the support for the resolution cut across party lines. In fact, for all practical purposes, it was (near) unanimous.

This level of across-the-board support could not have come because of the work of a couple of lobbying firms alone that have been contracted by the PTI; they represented the result of an organised campaign undertaken by Imran Khan’s supporters in electoral constituencies across the US.

And this is where the other factor comes into play. In the few days that I have been here, I have managed to talk to some of these American-Pakistanis belonging to influential sections of society due to their education and wealth.

They say they have lobbied their own representatives with vigour, and in the next phase of their campaign, will push for sanctions against the country of their birth if democratic rights there are not respected.

Whether their lobbying and what they see as a principled position effect a change in policy remains to be seen, particularly given that, for reasons of geopolitical goals and interests, US administrations are known to assign such issues overseas low priority.

Much will depend on whether a few months into the New Year, US strategic interests in Pakistan remain far and few in between, or some dramatic new elements are introduced into the equation.

Whereas there was much discussion about the CNN-anchored and produced US presidential debate this week, with Trump supporters seeing no wrong in their candidate and his unimpressive performance, the sometimes incoherent and stuttering Biden caused alarm bells to ring out among his supporters. As things stand, Trump seems a little ahead in the decisive battleground states.

It was not the US alone which underlined the tragedy of our times. The UK was no different. There, the televised BBC-produced debate brought Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the Labour aspirant to the prime ministerial office, Sir Keir Starmer, head to head.

While all polls suggested that Sunak will see the largest single debacle in the July 4 general elections and Starmer will win his party the largest majority since 1996, the real difference between the two leaders in concrete policy terms is not extraordinary.

For example, the Middle East policy, particularly towards Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, of both the Conservatives and Labour is heavily compromised by many of their leading lights’ receiving campaign funds from the Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI).

To know the extent of these groups’ influence and from where they receive their own funding, just google the facts. Public opinion in the UK and huge pro-Palestinian demonstrations have not had an impact on the policy of either party; such is their commitment and loyalty to those who provide funds to them generously.

Sadly, the US is no different. Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, who called out Israel for its Gaza genocide, lost the primary to a candidate whose campaign coffers were swelled by a $20 million donation from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Whether it is AIPAC in the US or the Conservative Friends of Israel or LFI in the UK, there is one common denominator: The key people working in these organisations have either worked themselves or have had close ties with the government or embassies of Israel.

This is how politicians are compromised and lose their ability to take independent decisions in key areas. The ongoing Gaza genocide has brou­ght into question the humanity of Western ‘demo­cracies’ and their commitment to human rights.

But the leaders seem helpless, despite witnessing horrific images every day that all normal people find unconscionable. There are a handful of countries, such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, Belgium and Slovenia, that have taken a stand, possibly because their leaders have not been compromised.

If this were not enough, wherever we look, we realise that the quality of leadership is on the decline. More and more rabble-rousers are coming to the fore, just as visionary leaders are fast becoming extinct. Here lies our greatest dilemma.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

[email protected]

Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2024