Hilton L. Root Alliance Curse. How America Lost the Third World (2008)

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.38.In this vein, see Looney (2006).39.Islamic Republic of Iran (1999, p.5).40.Ibid., p.139.41.Ibid., p.16.42.Ibid., p.5.15-7556-0 notes.qxd 5/9/08 9:59 PM Page 246246 Notes to Pages 140 5143.Ibid., p.16.44.Ibid., p.15.45.Citizens elect the president, the deputies to the Islamic Consultative Assembly,and members to local Islamic Councils.The Assembly elects jurists to the Council ofGuardians.Citizens also have the right to approve constitutional amendments by ref-erendum.The Supreme Leader, the highest authority, is elected by the Assembly ofExperts.Coordinating the three branches of government executive, legislative, andjudiciary and determining general policies and plans, including the five-year devel-opment plans, are the responsibilities of the Supreme Leader.46.Pollack (2006).47.Many commentators suggest that East Asia followed a course of growth withequity because of its presumed ethnic homogeneity, but this does not explain theregion s differences with Iraq.Chapter TenReischauer is quoted in Eustace Seligman s What the United States Can Do aboutIndia; Tariq Azim Khan is quoted in David E.Sanger and David Rohde, U.S.Is Likelyto Continue Aid to Pakistan, New York Times, November 5, 2007.1.Cohen and Chollet (2007, pp.7 19).2.Bhutto (1969, p.53).3.Kaul (1980, p.99).4.The United States provided India with nearly $10 billion in aid between 1951and the early 1970s.During this period, India was the largest single recipient of U.S.economic assistance, receiving 36 percent of U.S.foreign aid.In 1971, bilateral aid vir-tually ceased, except for a limited amount sent under Public Law 480, the Food forPeace Program, and was not resumed until 1978.Subsequent allocations neverreached earlier levels (U.S.Congress, House Ways and Means Committee 2004).5.Prasad (1979, p.71).On April 26, 1942, Gandhi was quoted as saying, Weknow what American aid means.It amounts in the end to American influence, if notfor American Rule, added to British (Bhutto 1969, p.37).6.Chandrasekhar (1965, p.64); Congressional Record, June 28, 1952, p.8551.7.Merrill (1990, p.13).8.See Farooq Sulehria, Emperors and Dictators, Labor Party of Pakistan web-site (www.laborpakistan.org/articles/pakistan/dictatoremperor.php).9.Merrill (1990, p.96).10.Bhutto (1969, p.43).11.Ibid., p.44.12.Chandrasekhar (1965, pp.61 62).13.Allende in Chile, Bhutto in Pakistan, and Sukarno in Indonesia were among themany third world leaders who, like Nehru, believed socialism was compatible withdemocracy.14.This notion is articulated by the economist Robert Barro (1997).15-7556-0 notes.qxd 5/9/08 9:59 PM Page 247Notes to Pages 151 59 24715.Seligman (1956, p.25).16.Cited in Merrill (1990, p.38).17.Ibid., p.44.18.Palmer (1984, p.125).19.Korbel (2002).20.Seligman (1956, p.33).21.SEATO prominently influenced the intercountry aid allocations in 1955.InPakistan and Thailand, especially, aid was related to enhancing military capabilities.22.Cohen (1980, p.104).23.Merrill (1990, p.106).24.Gopal (1975 1984).25.The political scientist A.Organski originated the theory of power transitions.Power transition theory relates the cyclic nature of war to power in international rela-tions and appeared originally in Organski s textbook, World Politics (1958).Accord-ing to this theory, John Kenneth Galbraith was correct, that the closer India and Pak-istan came to parity, the more likely they would be to engage in war.As two countriesapproach parity, the more relations will become adversarial.The median voter theoryupon which power transition theory is based holds that as two parties with widelydivergent beliefs or preferences approach parity, they become more confrontational,more willing to challenge each other (see Tammen and others 2000).26.Phillips and Poplai (1958, p.89).27.Wolf (1960, p.204).28.India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974.29.On August 10, 1971, the New York Times editorialized: The incredible UnitedStates decision to keep supplying arms aid and the aid to Pakistan in spite of the ruth-less Pakistani crack-down on autonomy-seeking Bengalis, and especially on BengaliHindus, has handed Moscow a major foreign policy coup (cited in Palmer 1984, p.48).30.Quoted in Merrill (1990, p.104).31.Looney (2001).32.Bhutto (1969, p.151).33.Cohen and Chollet (2007, p.7 19).34.National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004).35.On October 6, 2007, nearly eight years to the day since taking control of Pak-istan in a bloodless coup, President Pervez Musharraf was overwhelmingly reelected.On October 12, 1999, then General Pervez Musharraf had ousted Prime MinisterNawaz Sharif, who fled to Saudi Arabia rather than face corruption charges at home.Eight years later, to ensure cooperation from the country s largest political party,Musharraf dropped corruption charges against the twice-ousted former Prime Min-ister Benazir Bhutto, allowing her to lead her party in the 2007 parliamentary elec-tions.The rules that bar candidates from serving a third term were ignored forBhutto.But Nawaz Sharif, also ejected twice on corruption charges, was excluded, hisattempt to return home in late September 2007 thwarted.History will note that hav-ing toppled one corrupt politician to gain power, President Musharraf made a deal15-7556-0 notes.qxd 5/9/08 9:59 PM Page 248248 Notes to Pages 159 66with another to hold on to power.When asked about the legitimacy of the 2007 vote,Musharraf replied, If the majority votes for something, it is the rule of the day, that sdemocracy.There is no problem. See Kamlan Haider, Musharraf Sweeps the Vote,Reuters, October 6, 2007.36.Secretary of Defense Robert Gates emphasized the need to be mindful not todo anything that would undermine ongoing counter-terrorism efforts. Such state-ments have left Pakistanis with little reason to doubt that the war against terror isabout America s security, not Pakistan s security.37.David E.Sanger and David Rohde, U.S.Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan,New York Times, November 5, 2007.38.As in the other examples, a commitment trap has ensued, with Musharrafbelieving Washington needs him more than he needs Washington.This leaves theUnited States with little leverage over decisions, despite its considerable support of themilitary budget.Musharraf gains his leverage by manipulating the perceived lack ofalternatives.Of course, alternatives will not materialize so long as he is allowed toprevent all meaningful political expression among secular alternatives.39.Wright and Witte (2007).40.Siddiqa (2007).41.Asian Development Bank (2004).42.Most of the $10 billion in U.S.assistance Pakistan received in the five years afterSeptember 11, 2001, was channeled through the military (Cohen and Chollet 2007,pp.7 19). The majority of the $10 billion, 57 percent, has gone toward CoalitionSupport Funds, money intended to reimburse U.S.partners for their assistance in thewar on terrorism.Roughly 18 percent, or $1.8 billion, has gone toward security assis-tance.The Pakistanis have spent the majority of this money on purchases of majorweapons systems.Another 16 percent has gone toward budget support as direct cashtransfer to the government of Pakistan with few real accountability mechanisms builtin.This leaves less than 10 percent for development and humanitarian assistance,including the U.S.response to the October 2005 earthquake.Education.comes inat only $64 million per year for more than 55 million school-aged children or $1.16per child per year (Cohen and Chollet 2007, p.11 12).Roads, electricity and schoolsin Baluchistan would have better served both the purposes of development and themitigation of extremism.43 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Linki