Investment from foreign sources has
become something of a benchmark for evaluating a developing nation’s potential
for economic growth and prosperity. Common wisdom holds that the more a
country is able to lure foreign investors, the higher the standard of living
its citizens can expert. Politicians eager to justify their faith in such
investment often cite the ‘Tigers’ of East Asia as examples of the success
of this theory. Other factors that may equally have contributed to the
rise of East Asia, thus making the theory suspect at best, are altogether
left out. For instance, the cultural and geographical proximity of the
Tigers to each other; the absence of the threat of military intervention
from their chief investor, Japan, the high level of literacy and relatively
low population growth in East Asian nations prior to their miraculous economic
growth; the domestic and international stability in the region; and the
establishment of what may be called a free-trade zone in Southeast Asia
as early as 1967. To hope that foreign investment will work the same miracles
for Pakistan that it did for Malaysia or Thailand is thus clearly naive.
Pakistan is not friendly with its neighbours, who do not hold free-trade
relationships with it and do pose it a military threat, and 90% of Pakistan’s
people remain functionally illiterate while they multiply at some of the
highest rates n the world. Given these conditions, and the fact that Pakistan
insists on inviting the United States to play a substantial role in its
affairs, it is far more likely that American investment is going to do
for this country what it did for the island of Hispaniola.
Comparisons of this nature are difficult
to draw: geographical, cultural and historical differences set each nation
upon a unique course of development – or the lack thereof. Not all lessons
learnt from the history of one may therefore be applied to another Hispaniola
is a tiny island in the far-away Caribbean, about ten times smaller than
Pakistan in both area and population. Yet, it serves so many parallels
to Pakistan that it would be almost callous not to look at its fate carefully
and to derive at least some lessons.
After a hundred years of slavery under
European colonisers (Span and France), the black people of Hispaniola
proclaimed the independent republic of Haiti in 1804. A period of power
struggle followed, culminating in a break-up: the Spanish-speaking eastern
part of the island seceded as the Dominican republic in 1844. With largely
rural populations inheriting illiteracy, crushing poverty, and feudal structures
from the colonial times, both countries continued to have their political
problems. Dictatorships, military or otherwise, became the order of the
day. This was when the United States, an emerging world power at the turn
of the century, discovered the potential of this island. Things were easier
then: sovereignty was still a new concept, respected only in the case of
European and North American nations. There were no UN protocols to go through,
Pressler amendments to invoke, human rights abuses to concoct, sanctions
to impose, trade barriers to force open, or paperwork to pave the way for
American corporations. Once the ‘potential’ of a territory had been discovered,
all that needed doing was grabbing it. The US therefore simply sent
its Marines to Hispaniola and occupied the two countries – Haiti from 1915
to 1934 and the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924. The ease of the military
manoeuvre was matched by the simplicity of its purpose corporate investment,
or colonisation in earlier terms. Dozens of US come where they could produce
cheaply for as long as possible without worrying about labour unions, and
where their investment could be protected easily by the American Government.
Haiti and Dominican Republic were perfect candidates to start with: lack
of political consciousness, high rate of population growth, and low literacy.
What needed to be ensured was that these conditions prevail indefinitely.
To that end, through the next sixty years, the US installed and removed
military and civilian dictators in both countries at will. If one were
to retrospectively compile an instruction manual for these operations,
it would probably read like this:
1. Bring selected native military
officers for training to the United States; watch their progress once they
return, and help them through to the top. Ensure their loyalty through
‘kickbacks’ on purchases of military equipment.
2. If the currently installed dictator
or democratic leader is not serving US interests, or if domestic workers
are becoming conscious of exploitation and moving towards a revolution,
charge the government with human rights abuses, cut aid, impose sanctions,
and have the military effect a c1oup.
3. Install new dictator.
The policy was ingenious. It may be
termed the pressure-cooker treatment. The Hispaniolans would be steamed
in a pressure cooker, and every time the pressure became too high, the
swishing weight would be replaced at the top, thus letting out just enough
steam to prevent an explosion.
In the Dominican Republic, for example,
Rafael Trujillo ruled ruthlessly and lived opulently till his assassination
in 1961. In free elections held the following year, the leftist government
of Juan Bosch came to power. Predictably, the military overthrew him the
next year. In 1965, a popular revolt against the military dictatorship
attempted to restore Bosch to power, but American marines were promptly
sent in ‘to restore order and the status quo.’ Subsequent elected governments
continued to face US pressure against reform.
Haiti had an identical tale to tell.
The Duvaliers (Papa Doc and Baby Doc) ruled with the off-and-on blessings
of their Uncle Sam – the blessings showered according to the likelihood
of revolt – till the late 80s. Faced with a potential revolution, Baby
Doc eventually went comfortably into exile in France. In the first free
elections in 1988, Leslie Maginat came to power on a reformist platform.
He lasted six months before the US-trained military took care of his reforms.
The generals then kept coming and going (coming to power and going into
luxurious exile in the United States or one of its allies) for a couple
of years as the US tried desperately to diffuse the revolutionary fervour
through this rapid shuffling and some rhetoric about democracy. Elections,
finally, were held in February 1991 and their results were not good. Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, a nationalist whose campaign was made up largely of anti-imperialist
and anti-American slogans, was the victor. One hates to repeat oneself,
but what is the choice when history does little else? Aristide was ousted
by the Haitian military in October. Interestingly enough, the generals
who ousted Aristide, Raoul Cedras and company, faced the same kind of revolutionary
situation within two years that the ousters of Bosch did in Dominican Republic
in the 60s. History repeated itself yet again as the United States, a after
much tough talk about punishing Cedras, sent its troops ‘to restore order
and democracy.’ The plan was also to reinstall as president none else but
Aristide who, having learnt his lessons well, was by now standing arm-on-breast
in front of the American flag with the likes of Colin Powell in Wsahington,
D.C. The world was led to believe that Cedras was as big a demon as Saddam
Hussein and would be apprehended and severely punished. But those who knew
better were not surprised when Cedras & Co. together with their large
families, left Port-au-Prince in special flights destined for resort-like
villas in Central America. They were guaranteed lifelong incomes by the
United States, and to provide additional income for the demon himself,
the US agreed to rent for its military headquarters Cedreas’ personal estate
in Haiti. All is well that ends well.
Not for the people of Haiti. With
the American military firmly among them now, they will have to wait. They
will continue to be paid 14 cents an hour by American corporations who
pay 14 dollars an hour for the same work only a few hundred miles away.
Literacy remains law among them (under 50%), and consequently population
growth rates are high (around 3%). The low literacy and high population
together ensure that there will always be a large pool of unskilled labour
for the American corporations to exploit. With too many workers bidding
for too little work, the lowest bidder wins. Haiti has thus become a labour
concentration camp in America’s backyard. Most Haitians are not even aware
of this larger hand that exploits them while claiming that it protects
and feeds them. Even when their pressure-cooker begins to burst, it is
only from undirected anger. They are uneducated and disorganised. There
is little hope for them of prosperity, even if one day their exploiters
misjudge the pressure and are unable to diffuse sufficient steam. The explosion
that would take place would only lead to utter chaos. This is the gift
of American investment.
Those who insist on financial ties
with America must remember that whenever America has invested in a country,
it has included that country in its ‘sphere of influence’ in which American
corporate interests are protected at all costs – at the cost of native
workers, at the cost of democracy and freedom, at a military cost and at
the cost of international law. America’s competitiveness in the world market
has been on the decline for more than two decades, and its own social fabric
is coming apart, for economic as well as sociological reasons. It desperately
needs to use underdeveloped nations to prop itself up. Friendship cannot
exist between two nations as disparate as Pakistan and the United States.
Equality is a necessary condition for friendship. While begging and toadying
up to America all the time, Pakistan claims to be improving friendly ties.
This is a mistake that may plunge the people of this country into the same
eternal fate that has been the share of Hispaniola: economic oppression
under alternating military rule and feudalism disguised as democracy. Pakistan
cannot deny or later the fact that it is situated in South Asia. Its history
and economy, both past and future, are inextricably mixed with and affected
by the history and economy of Asia. If there are any ties that Pakistan
needs improving, they all end in this continent. Pakistan must make peace
with its neighbours on the basis of equality, address it literacy and population
problems on an emergency schedule, and then seek investment from non-militarised
nations of the East. An educated, controlled population is like a
tiger: it defines the limits as it hunts for opportunity. By inviting high-skill
jobs, it raises its standard of living. An uneducated, uncontrolled population
can only be a prey: it invites exploitation, intervention, and ultimately
indirect rule by the foreign investor – especially by a highly predatory
foreign investor.
|