The Pakistani Spectator

by Dan Tow

I have noted a recurring theme to comments to my articles and others on this site. Comments often say something like “Oh, yes, that’s a fine idea, but in the end, we are powerless, because America is controlling the government of Pakistan, anyway – they are merely puppets.” In this article, I will discuss my view, from an American perspective, of the degree to which America controls other nations, and I will discuss larger issues of how, and how much, any entity controls any other entity.

First, I want to clarify some definitions. When I hear of “American control,” I sometimes sense a belief in an almost supernatural entity “America” that has thoughts of its own, makes decisions of its own, whispers in the ears of leaders of other countries, and that wields mighty, magical power. This is nonsense, of course. On this planet, the only decision makers and thinkers that matter, politically, are individual human beings, and only individual human beings wield political power, as individuals, or as semi-organized groups that reach agreements among themselves to work together. So, when someone says that “America is pulling the strings” of some puppet government, what they really must mean, if they are not just speaking nonsense, is that some organized group of American people is wielding most of the control over that government – the people inside that country’s government are not the true decision makers, at least on the most important matters.

Whether it is true or not, this idea of some external group pulling the strings has important consequences. I think the most important consequence of this idea is a tendency toward defeatism – the notion that there is just no point in working toward a better government, because any efforts in that direction are doomed, anyway, by this all-powerful external force. Such an idea could be quite useful to an oppressive government inside the country: “You don’t just need to defeat us, to have the government you want; you need to defeat mighty America!” Therefore, a corrupt government might find it actually useful to appear to be under American control even when there is no truth to this. Of course, just because an idea harms political progress doesn’t make it false, so let’s look at how much truth there might be to the idea, and what you could do about it.

It is vital to be clear, I think, about exactly who is supposedly pulling the strings, first, since we’ve already established it is nonsense to speak of “America” pulling the strings. Let’s say that we have no evidence of string-pulling, except that people think their government’s actions make no sense without that explanation. What group of Americans might be pulling the strings? Let’s start by considering the American government: It has three branches, the Judicial Branch (the courts), the Legislative Branch (Congress), and the Administrative Branch (the president, and those who report to him, including the US military and the American CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). The only branch that can effectively pull strings secretly is the administrative branch – the others operate very publicly through passing and enforcing laws. If, for example, Congress wanted to inconvenience the government of Cuba (as it does), it would pass a law (as it has) to prevent almost all US trade with Cuba, but it would not, for example, sponsor a coup against Castro, because it has no way to organize such a thing in secret. The CIA apparently has, however, under the administrative branch, attempted to overthrow or assassinate Castro on more than one occasion, so there surely is some history of the administrative branch of the US government secretly attempting to make major changes in other governments. I won’t go into an exhaustive discussion of these attempts that have become public knowledge, here, but I think it is possible to describe them as a group:

• They rarely remain secret for very long, especially if they were successful.
• They usually fail to give the US long-term, detailed control, often failing even in the short run, and almost always failing in the long run.
• When they succeed best, they are likely simply pushing the government in the direction the people of that country would choose in the end, anyway – the best example is Chile, when apparently the CIA succeeded in pushing the overthrow of a new, Communist government under Salvador Allende, and the government of Chile has remained capitalist ever since, but based on the direction the whole world has taken, it seems probable that Chile would have dumped Communism on its own, anyway.
• They have never succeeded in controlling the government of a stable democracy (and they have rarely tried).
• They only succeed in moving against the wishes of the people in the short run (never in the long run!) when the government is weak and unstable, when, for example, a single person can be bribed or blackmailed to follow the US agenda, and the government lacks the checks and balances to prevent that single individual from working against the nation’s own interests.

All in all, there is no magic in the US government – where it succeeds temporarily in throwing its weight around, it uses mundane, simple methods that any organized group of people could use. Where the US government pulls strings, likely other governments are also pulling strings at the same time, and likely commercial enterprises inside the same country are also exploiting the corruption of the same government for their own commercial ends. It is even possible that the US-government string-pulling was counteracting more harmful string-pulling by other forces, as when US string-pulling manipulating weak governments in favor of Capitalism counteracted even more harmful string-pulling from the Soviet Union. If the US government stopped pulling strings, would the rest of the world simply ignore the opportunity to manipulate a weak and corrupt government? (I’m not excusing US government manipulation, which was certainly wrong in many cases, but I am pointing out that the more serious core problem is the lack of a strong, stable, democratic, uncorrupt government that is relatively immune to manipulation, not the manipulation of any one government.

Does the US government have an interest in preventing establishment of strong, stable democracies? Well, foolish people in the US government have in the past occasionally worked against new democracies, when they disliked the direction they were taking. This has been rare, though, and has never been a good idea, if you look at history – the problems America has faced have never come from established, stable democracies, and I expect they never will – such countries would much rather trade with each other than make war, and America benefits greatly from stable, free trade.

Yes, the American government has interfered in other governments, and still does, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, but probably with a lot less success than you think! Is this a one-way street – Americans pulling the strings of other nations without leaders of other nations pulling America’s strings? Certainly not! Other nations might have less power than America, but they surely have an intense interest in “turning the tables,” getting what they want from America even as the American government is trying to manipulate them, and American leaders can be as gullible as any, especially if they are paying less attention to the relationship (as they likely will be) than paid by the other nation’s leaders. Leaders of other nations have often gotten the better end of the deal, obtaining more from America than they gave in return. Of course, where these were corrupt leaders, what they won from America was likely more to their personal benefit than to the benefit of their nation, so in these cases, likely, both nations “lost” as a result of the deals made.

How about American influence from outside the government? Well, there are plenty of Americans with conspiracy theories about sneaky world-controlling groups, like the ever-popular oil companies, or the Trilateral Commission, or, ethnic-based groups. I’ve heard the theories, but they make no sense. These groups have far fewer resources to call upon than the US Government. They cannot arrest people for revealing their secrets. They have no army or Navy. They cannot call upon patriotism to call for extraordinary sacrifices from foot-soldiers or spies – can you imagine someone sacrificing his life for the good of the oil industry?! Really, think about it – the idea of world control from some non-governmental group could only make sense if that group commanded some sort of magic, something like supernatural cunning, supernatural intelligence, or some other sort of magical control of human-kind. It makes no sense – they’re only human! It makes no sense from another respect, too: These groups have their own quite-narrow interests, usually just the simple goal to make money and live happy lives, and there are far simpler, safer ways to make money than to somehow control the world! Of course that doesn’t mean that corporations, for example, won’t sometimes exploit corrupt politicians – of course they will! They aren’t interested in controlling countries, though; they just want to win contracts, or sell products for a high price, or buy goods for a low price, none of which requires control of a whole government! Just as in the cases of US government interference, the opportunity for limited interference from corporate groups from the US or elsewhere depends on a weak government without proper checks and balances, especially one with corruption, since the likely method employed by a corporation will be bribery.

I see no real conflict between the well-informed interests of nations; in the end, all nations will be better off freely, peacefully, and openly pursuing their own true interests without secret interference, so there is no benefit in the end to real or perceived government manipulation, except perhaps to counteract other manipulation from other governments where an especially weak and corrupt government is wide-open to such manipulation. How do you fight such improper interference as there is? I honestly think the best method is not to see it as inevitable! When corruption is assumed, there will be far more corruption! When self-government is seen as hopeless, self-government becomes far harder! If everyone assumes that you cannot fight against whatever the US wants, the US merely needs to say what it wants, and anyone wishing to fight that will lose hope, or will be seen as fighting a hopeless fight! The belief in US control is likely the best weapon the US has to exercise the limited control it has! If you instead believe that your own choices will determine your nation’s future, as I believe, in the end, this will be a self-fulfilling prophesy, and this will benefit both America and Pakistan!

Last 5 posts by Dan Tow

• Safety in “Big Daddy’s” Shadow? - September 8th, 2008
• Coping with Limits to Control in Politics, Life, and Bridge - August 26th, 2008
• The Right to Remain Silent - June 18th, 2008
• Living with Free Speech - June 6th, 2008
• Free Speech on The Pakistani Spectator - May 1st, 2008