David Cameron Pulls An Obama

The British Prime Minister has not only emulated the American president but his predecessor at Number 10 Downing Street.  Specifically, the man who once appeared to be a model of informed, deliberative, rational conservatism metaphorically fell on his knees apologizing for the presumed sins committed by Great Britain decades ago.  He did this while visiting Pakistan and promising the ever-needy Pakistani government beaucoup bucks to support its failing education system.

It might be noted that whatever exists in Pakistan in the area of secular public instruction is a legacy of the years of British colonial rule.  The same applies to other, worthy features of the country including the (semi-abandoned) principles of parliamentary government, rule of law, separation of state and faith as well as the continued use of the English language.

The British Raj left the sub-continent with a set of very real political, social, and economic treasures.  In India the residuals of the Raj were appreciated and built upon with results that are evident in all areas of life there.  The situation in Pakistan was divergent.  In Pakistan, parliamentary rule was compromised by a series of military coups, threats from advocates of political Islam, and flat-out brutal dictatorships.  During one of the periodic excursions into dictatorship, that of General Zia, deliberate decisions of state policy undercut both the rule of law and the supremacy of parliamentary rule.

Zia believed that a further reinforcement of the Islamic identity of the Pakistani people would provide a social and political coherence which would assure ultimate Pakistani victory over India.  To this end he invited Saudi Arabia to fund an expansive set of religious instruction centers covering all of the country.  This resulted in the effective introduction of militant Wahhibism and all that implies.

Among the implications were the degrading of the secular public instruction system, the introduction of Islamic law, Shariah, in place of the "King's Peace" derived British legal code, and the fatal merging of mosque and state.  Arguably, this was all the result of Pakistan's deep and quite irrational fear and loathing of its larger neighbor, which focused on the issue of who-owns-the-Kashmir.

While the unresolved status of Kashmir was a consequence of the hasty ending of the Raj in the months following World War II, there is no way the British government of that day can be held responsible.  This means, quite simply, that not only was Cameron's apology unnecessary, it was unjustified by the historical record.  It is mind boggling that the very highly educated Mr Cameron should be so ignorant of his own country's recent history.  Even more mind boggling is the proposition that Mr Cameron was aware of the historical reality but decided to toss it aside in the interests of some sort of truckling for Pakistani approval.

In his apology, Mr Cameron, like President Obama and former prime minister Tony Blair, did his country a massive disservice.  Worse, his effort at truckling will have no future benefit for either British interests of the betterment of the political/social situation in either Pakistan or upon the sub-continent.  It was a blunder of the sort Talleyrand famously condemned when committed by the Emperor Napoleon.

History is a complex subject.  It is not sufficient that a person have a superficial knowledge of the topic.  Rather, it requires a high degree of expertise painfully acquired over years of dreary effort reading dull books and turgid documents in dust filled archives.  Beyond that, it requires a mindset which relishes complexity, delights in finding the often faint and blurry lines of cause and effect, takes pleasure in seeing the typically dim but critical linkages between a specific event and the context in which the event occurs.  In short, despite the widespread belief that anyone--even the high school wrestling coach--can both understand and teach history, the reality is quite antipodal.

Mr Cameron in his apology, again like Obama and Blair in theirs, stepped boldly into swampy terrain where even the most erudite expert treads both lightly and hesitantly.  More importantly, it is not a part of the job description for either prime minister or president to offer apologies for the word and deeds of those who have occupied the same seats of power in long gone times.  Yes, history, the record of causes and effects, does serve to condition the options available to a contemporary incumbent.  That is a reality.  But this fact does not provide the basis for an apology.  Nor does it establish the need for one.

Prime ministers and presidents are presumed to be forward looking in their words and deeds.  The policies they espouse are for the future, not supposed to address either the sins or the brilliance of the past.  Arguably mea culpas are recipes for future failure as they encourage those to whom the apologies are directed to assume that today's policies will be the subject of tomorrow's apologies should that be desired.

It would have been far more appropriate for PM Cameron to have reminded his Pakistani auditors of all the benefits left to them by the Raj.  In that context he could have chided the Pakistanis for having sold out the splendid heritage left them for a something far less valuable than the Biblical mess of pottage.  He could have pointed out the vast difference between the current state of affairs in Pakistan and India with comments to the effect that one had held fast to the legacy while the other had abandoned it to pursue a mirage far more appropriate to the hot wastes of Saudi Arabia than the far more fertile and productive soil of Pakistan.

The UK and the West have very little about which to apologize when considering their record of interaction with and colonization of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Mideast.  The positive effects have far outweighed the negative.  Sure, that appreciation runs counter to currently popular narratives regarding all the evils perpetrated by colonial exploitation.  Simply running against the popular view does not undercut the historical record's power.  Or accuracy.

A master of the English language put it perfectly: "The evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."  So it has been with the former colonies of the assorted Western states.  The combination of domestic political agendas in the one-time colonies and the great desire of left leaning intellectuals in the West to kick their native region and lands in the crotch have assured this.  It is commonplace and has been so for generations now to underline all the evils done by Western states throughout the world.  It has been and remains exceptional to note with pride the many benefits conferred by both intention and accident during the long decades of colonial rule.

Western political leaders would do themselves, their countries, their audiences, the world--and the historical truth--a great service if they would eschew the bended knee of the penitent.  If they would instead stand tall and proud while reciting all that the West has provided  over centuries for the benefit of all human beings.

Doing such would knock a lot of wind out of those who profitably practice the politics of victimization.  And, that, the Geek rather fancies, would be a very fine development.