"Since 2001, a global “war on terror” has been waged under a grand narrative of secularism and civilization combating Islamic fundamentalism, and has dovetailed conveniently with wars conducted under that other grand narrative of supporting democracy against dictatorship. In fact, as the political economist Adam Hanieh argues, there is a single imperialist war on the people of the region at large, a war that stretches from Libya and Egypt in North Africa, to Somalia in East Africa, to Syria and Iraq in West Asia, to Afghanistan and Pakistan in South Asia. It is worth noting that most of these countries have Muslim majorities. [...] Defining a pro-people politics and initiative in this mess is difficult. In Pakistan, an old left, eager not to be on the wrong side of secularism, civilization and democracy, has frequently found itself degenerating into liberalism, siding explicitly or implicitly with imperialism. Some younger radicals have also been prone to confusion. [...] There is no shortage of evidence showing how the U.S. and its Western allies have long pressured Pakistan into military operations and have been calling for the same in North Waziristan in particular. They have repeatedly claimed that their war on the people of Afghanistan has been a failure because the Taliban, who lead an anti-NATO resistance there, have found rear bases and safe havens across the border in Pakistan. Accordingly, the majority of U.S. drone attacks have been conducted in North Waziristan. As the U.S. begins to withdraw some of its forces from Afghanistan, Western powers seek to maintain their presence and power in the region in other ways—including by shifting the focus of the war to Pakistan. Unsurprisingly, a U.S. congressional resolution proposes to make $300 million of the total aid package given to Pakistan under the Coalition Support Funds, contingent specifically upon an operation being carried out by Pakistan in North Waziristan. The total aid, some $900 million for 2015, is intended as reimbursements and compensation from the U.S. to Pakistan for the latter’s support to coalition forces in the region. [...] If the military appears to be strong in Pakistan, it is not only because the institution has a particular self-interest – since the same social forces and fissures that permeate the rest of society permeate the military – but mainly because it has regularly served as a seat of power for the U.S. to acquire the consensus and contradictory unity of the landlords and capitalists. [...] U.S.-led imperialism cannot secure its hegemony over Pakistan without the reigning capitalists and landlords. Similarly, the landlords and capitalists certainly have their own interests, but they are dependent upon imperialism and are unable, and unwilling, to resist it. It is under this contradictory unity achieved by imperialist hegemony that decisions are taken. In the 1980s, the decision was war against the USSR through Islamist militants; now the decision is war against Islamist militants. [...] The principal contradiction in Pakistan is between imperialism and the people of Pakistan. Imperialism is that class force that influences and shapes the nature of other contradictions. Imperialism is responsible for the exacerbation of militancy in Pakistan whether by directly encouraging its growth during the Cold War, or indirectly encouraging its growth by attacking the people of the region in various ways thereafter. Pitting imperialism and its proposed courses of action as the opposite of militancy and extremism simplifies the issues and ignores these deep relations. Meanwhile, the current landed and capitalist ruling classes represented by their two main “civilian” factions (PML-N , PML-Q or PPP) are unable and unwilling to resist imperialism precisely because they are so fundamentally dependent upon imperialism to perpetuate their own interests and rule." Zarb-e-Azb and the Left: On Imperialism’s Materiality
