Pakistani Editorials On The U.S. Government
On January 26, 2007, the editorial section of a major Pakistani newspaper published the editorial, “A New Pressler Law?” The author of this editorial compared a new bill in the United States Senate with the Pressler Amendment, according to which all foreign aid made to Pakistan by the United States was dependent on a certificate of the U.S. President declaring that the Pakistani government is not engaged in a nuclear program for military purposes. The new bill passed by the House of Representatives is not Pakistan-specific; rather, it includes the nation with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. The author asserts that this should not be, given that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are very different from each other in terms of their policies and governance. Another editorial published the same day in the same Pakistani newspaper claimed that the U.S. government has almost duped the American public by “using taxpayer dollars to run an outsourcing laboratory” of private military companies, such as the secretive Blackwater USA charging exorbitant rates for their services (Scahill). And, on January 27, 2007, the paper published an editorial by a former ambassador who claimed that the United States’ doctrine of unilateral pre-emption against emerging threats before they are fully formed has failed given that international affairs are messy affairs nowadays and nobody seems to be happy with the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan (Hussain).
The editorial written by Mr. Javid Hussain and published on January 27, 2007, “Failure of unilateral preemption” does not provide any fresh insights into the matter in question. Using the same words for anti-U.S. sentiments that we have heard from countless writers by now – since the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq – the editorial reminds the reader of a “broken record.” The author makes the statement, “The US attack on Iraq, undertaken without approval by the UN Security Council, thus lacked moral or legal legitimacy.” We have to point out that since the UN is not God, there is actually no issue of moral or legal legitimacy involved when a nation feels truly threatened by its enemies and there is no legitimate way to end the disturbance other than to wage a war. Moreover, the author refers to the United States’ “imperial” designs on the world at large. We have to disagree with this, knowing that the United States – unlike Great Britain in its colonial past – has never tried to invade nations in order to rule them. Finally, the author has not provided significant evidence to support his view that the United States’ doctrine of unilateral preemption has “proved to be an invitation to anarchy in international relations.” When did that happen and where did it happen? – we are left wondering.
1. “A New Pressler Law.” Editorial. Dawn
, 26 January 2007.
2. Hussain, Javed. “Failure of Unilateral Preemption.” Editorial. Dawn
, 27 January 2007.
3. Scahill, Jeremy. “US Mercenaries in Iraq.” Editorial. Dawn
, 26 January 2007.