Newsletter No. 1399
News-Analysis
July 4, 2009

 

NAKASONE MEETS AFPAK FOREIGN MINISTERS IN TRIESTE

From June 25th to 27th a G-8 foreign ministers’ meeting was held in Trieste, Italy. This meeting was held in preparation for the annual G-8 summit to be held in L’Aquila, Italy, next week. In Trieste, Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone took the opportunity to meet with both Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

In fact, the Afpak War was pretty much the major item on the G-8 agenda as a whole. The joint statement from the conference stated, “Insurgency and terrorist activities, narcotics, trafficking, corruption, human rights violation, and limited economic opportunities need to be tackled with resolve wherever they appear. We, the foreign ministers of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the G-8, affirm our commitment to working together to address the challenges that affect Afghanistan and the region.”

Nakasone met Foreign Minister Spanta for twenty minutes on the sidelines of the summit. They agreed on the importance of holding free and fair presidential election in Afghanistan in August. Nakasone relayed to Spanta a plan to send a Japanese election monitoring team. This team will be made up of around ten members, most of them Japanese diplomats. Nakasone also promised that Japan would continue to be a major donor to Afghanistan. For his part, Spanta outlined Afghanistan’s key priorities over the coming years, which he said would be focused on “agriculture, energy supply, construction of roads and railways, and education.” Finally, Nakasone acknowledged the appointment of the new Afghan ambassador to Tokyo, Eklil Ahmad Hakimi, who was officially accredited on June 19th.

The media had less to say about Foreign Minister Nakasone’s meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. This meeting was held several hours after the Nakasone-Spanta meeting, and lasted about twice as long, forty minutes. Based on the relevant MOFA statement, it would seem that the Afpak War dominated the agenda. There was a brief note, however, that they “exchanged opinions” on economic reform, refugees, nuclear nonproliferation, and UN Security Council reform.

COMMENTARY

1) From Ahmad Rashid Malik of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on July 6, 2009:

What does the term "Afpak" mean?

If it means Pakistan and Afghanistan, then it is highly objectionable. You should say that Foreign Minister Nakasone met the Pakistani Foreign Minister and Afghanistan's Foreign Minister and not "Afpak Foreign Ministers." You do not have to be so "brief." Try to be decent.

The term seems to be derogatory like the term "economic animals" or "Japs" for Japanese. If they still insist on "Afpak," then we may start using "ChiJap" for "China and Japan" and "KorJap" for Korea and Japan. Tell me if the Japanese Foreign Ministry is happy with these concise terms coined by me, as an East Asia expert, so that I might start using them in my writings.

2) From John McGlynn, an independent scholar, on July 6, 2009:

Ahmad Rashid Malik is right to question the appropriateness of the term Afpak (Afghanistan and Pakistan).

But as John Prados of the National Security Archive explains, the term has become "a new acronym in the lexicon of Obama administration national security moguls." [1] Adds Prados: "The term denotes the administration's desire to take a unified approach to policy and strategy for these two countries. President Barack Obama correctly views them as the central front of the war on terrorism and -- also accurately -- sees so many aspects of the strategic problem of the Afghan war playing out in both countries that it is far more useful to consider them intertwined."

One of the things Prados, who wrote on April 1, probably had in mind, was a talk entitled "President Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) Strategy" delivered a few days earlier by General James Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor. [2]

The term is now used in major daily newspapers around the world and all over the Internet. With the Obama national security team in office for at least 3 1/2 more years and currently executing its major strategic plan for Central Asia, which includes the extremely dangerous Petraeus-directed campaign to bomb those living on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border (the artificial Durand Line imposed by the British), "AfPak," it seems, is going to stick around for a while.

As for Japan, its complete subservience to US foreign policy means at the very least diplomatic support for the "Afpak" strategy.

On its own, Afpak may have little meaning for most people, least of all for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but like the terms "war on terror" and the "Middle East peace process" -- the meaning of which are subject to fierce debate, particularly when analyzing who is on the receiving end of the war and the process -- it will serve as a useful umbrella term for those trying to analyze a military-political policy quickly becoming institutionalized in Washington.

That leaves the question of the term's use by Shingetsu. I think it's safe to assume that in the months and years to come users of the Shingetsu website will look for mention of Afpak, especially if some want information about the nexus between US strategic designs for Pakistan-Afghanistan and Japan. At this point its use on the website appears inevitable, but perhaps usage guidelines can be suggested (something I'm not good at).

Lastly, it goes without saying that to the extent Japan is involved, Shingetsu should try to feature analysis of the political, economic and military dimensions of Afpak.

Notes

[1] John Prados, The AfPak Paradox, FPIF, April 1, 2009.

[2] National Security Advisor General James Jones, President Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) Strategy, US State Dept. Foreign Press Center, March 27, 2009.

3) From Ahmad Rashid Malik of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on July 7, 2009:

Mr. John McGlynn has only described the "face value" of the objectionable term "Afpak." Moreover, while explaining it, he made a blunder in suggesting that the Durand Line is an artificial border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is a fact that the United Nations recognizes the Durand Line as the permanent international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the same border that existed between British India and Afghanistan.

It may be that the intention behind the term "Afpak" is to re-open a pandora's box of previously settled and forgotten past conflicts by giving a new view of them. I raised this question of "Afpak" yesterday precisely because I fear a coming border dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan, should such a term as Afpak be used regularly.

4) From John Edward Philips of Hirosaki University on July 7, 2009:

It seems that A. R. Malik accepts the legitimacy of colonial borders, while J. McGlynn believes states should be organized on an ethnic basis. This places Malik with the African nationalists and McGlynn with most of the Europeans. There is a place for either argument in political discussion, and this difference is in fact at the basis of many conflicts in the world, including the Moroccan-Saharan conflict. I don't think we will resolve it here and I don't want to read a flame war about it. I think we should leave it.

The problems of Pakistani nation building (and Japanese policy towards it) should be discussed here on Shingetsu, though. Pakistan was founded along a colonial border in its west and rather arbitrary lines in the east. Whether Pakistan was a good idea or not is, if not totally irrelevant now, mostly of relevance to historians. Pakistan exists.

But for how much longer? Pakistan has already fallen apart once, and there is no guarantee that what is left of Pakistan won't fall apart again. The United States and Japan seem to think that a stable Pakistan is in their national interest. India may not agree. Certainly, we should all agree that Pakistan, or any of its successor states (if any) using nuclear weapons would not be in anyone's interest. What can Japan, or anyone outside of Pakistan, do to support a stable, moderate Pakistan?

5) From Samuel Noumoff of McGill University on July 7, 2009:

The comments of John McGlynn place the employment of the "AFPAC" acronym or symbolic shorthand in its proper perspective. The bureaucratic imperative, both civilian and military, to acronymize every policy which they address has one positive effect: It shortens the key strokes in writing reports from 22 to 5 (a relief for the typists).

Somewhat more seriously, the employment of terms, as previous Shingetsu discussions have revealed, establishes boundaries on our thinking. AFPAK, as has been suggested, represents an integrated policy for addressing the adjacent border regions of both countries. The "blowback" of this policy may have dire and unintended consequences. The most significant one being the weakening of central authority in both countries over those regions, resulting in a fragmentation spinout of both polities.

As I have previously suggested in the context of earlier discussions, Japan faces two choices; either to continue its irrational endorsement of U.S. policy, or aspire to become a voice of reason and a creative voice in seeking alternative solutions respected by almost all sides. Is this possible? Only if the right choices are made by the government-in-waiting.

6) From Grant K. Goodman of the University of Kansas on July 8, 2009:

The discussion in your Newletters about the Afghan-Pakistan acronyms evokes a reminder to me that during World War II, the United States employed the acronym AFPAC to mean Armed Forces in the Pacific -- perhaps to point out that AFPAC has already been "used," so to speak, will determine the necessity for finding some other acronym for Afghanistan-Pakistan.

7) From Keiji Uchida, a Japanese businessman, on July 8, 2009:

Just a note that may be relevant to the current discussion: We quite often use the acronym INPAKI (Indian and Pakistani) in the Japanese business world, especially in the construction field, to indicate the people from both countries.

8) From Abd al-Salam al-Khatib, a Palestinian businessman, on July 8, 2009:

In West Asia, where the media is very active in covering the hot spots, we are witnessing several political-linguistic manipulations by competing powers to create specific meanings in order to serve their own interests, at least on the level of public awareness. These terms spread rapidly and become common all over the world.

Not everyone is aware of the direct and indirect effects and implications of these terms, except perhaps among those who are directly concerned. I suppose that this explains why the term "AFPAK" drew the attention of Dr. Malik first. Some people may use certain terms just because they are common, but a common term is not necessarily a correct term.

To cite an example that concerns me, I am becoming sensitive to the use of the term "Gazans." Let's think a minute here: What does "Gazans" mean? Shouldn't we really be saying "Palestinians in Gaza"? After all, many of the people currently residing in the Gaza Strip are actually refugees from other parts of Palestine, and not natives of Gaza. To me, this term "Gazans" feels like a denial of our Palestinian nationality, and I don't believe that the use of this term in the media is entirely innocent and uninterested.

Like the case of the term AFPAK, some may believe that this is an abstract and trivial matter, but anyone who really follows the political discussions in this region will know that these terms are not arbitrarily used. I'm sure that we will witness the creation of more terms and abbreviations that reflect calculations of power. So what to do?

I think that the Shingetsu Institute has two choices. It can go along with "commonly used" terms and thus indirectly assist in making them more common. Alternatively, it can plainly use terms that are more accurate and help coming generations be free from 21st century linguistic manipulations.

Lastly, Mr. McGlynn, mentions a genuine point about researching on the website and information accessibility. If Shingetsu opts for the second option, this issue can be accommodated through the website administration. Several terms can be archived in such a way that "Afpak" can be searched with all possible variations of Pakistan-Afghanistan or Afghanistan-Pakistan.

9) From Michael Penn of the Shingetsu Institute on July 8, 2009:

I think that this discussion about the term "Afpak" has been a good one, and has produced several interesting observations from a number of different perspectives. At this point I would like to focus the discussion toward a specific orientation.

Basically, Dr. Malik has proposed that we abandon use of the term "Afpak" in Shingetsu discussions. In his initial message, he asserted that the term has a discriminatory ring to it. To answer the question posed at the end of the latest message by Abd al-Salam al-Khatib, in principle I am indeed willing to give up use of terms that do not facilitate accurate understandings. As an example, I draw your attention to Shingetsu Newsletter No. 1365 in which I explained my objection to the term "The Middle East" and why I don't use it except when mentioning the names of organizations and such.

However, if I am to banish the term "Afpak" from my lexicon, I believe that there must be a clear and credible reason for doing so. The burden of proof, I would say, is on those who wish us to abandon the term. If I become convinced that "Afpak" is a term that is either discriminatory or seriously misleading, then I will indeed drop it. On the other hand, I have not yet seen in this discussion any criticism of the term "Afpak" which I have found particularly concrete or convincing.

It may be worth noting, for example, that the word "Pakistan" has a rather similar etymology. The creation of the word Pakistan is attributed to Choudhary Rahmat Ali who, while on a visit to London in 1932, needed some way of describing the proposed Muslim homeland in British India. He created the name by stringing together the names of various Muslim-majority provinces: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan (The "i" was added to facilitate pronunciation). Actually, it may be argued that in one sense the term "Afpak" is redundant, in the sense that Afghanistan (Pashtunistan) is already represented in the first "a" of Pakistan.

In sum, I am throwing down a challenge to those who say we should abandon the term "Afpak." You must give adequate proof that the term is discriminatory or misleading. If this challenge is met, then I am prepared to drop usage of Afpak. If it remains unmet, then I will continue using the term, but put it on "probation" by keeping a careful eye on how it becomes used in popular debate.

10) From Samuel Noumoff of McGill University on July 8, 2009:

One reason to consider using "AFPAK" in quotation marks is merely that it has become a military phrase to describe a theatre of operations. All too often in recent years the psyops vocabulary has been inserted into the common language with the intent of creating a mind set which sees a given issue through the prism of the military. It is indeed a not so subtle attempt at mind bending. To date, the bearers of this phenomenon were the embedded journalists, in Iraq, in response to the unimbedded journalists of the Vietnam War era who were blamed for the loss of that war. To avoid, inadvertently, becoming a part of this mind bending, let us accept the simple proposal of referring to the two countries as Afghanistan-Pakistan, or if you prefer Pakistan-Afghanistan.

11) From Ahmad Rashid Malik of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on July 9, 2009:

Dear Mr. Samuel Noumoff: Thanks for your comments. You were able to quickly grasp the so-called notion attached to the term "Afpak" and you realized that it refers to a military operation. Your advice to simply refer to Pakistan-Afghanistan and vice versa is extremely delightful and understandable to the policy-makers, analysts, and people of the concerned areas.

12) From Mohammad Anwer Memon of Yokohama Mosque on July 9, 2009:

Penn: However, if I am to banish the term "Afpak" from my lexicon, I believe that there must be a clear and credible reason for doing so. The burden of proof, I would say, is on those who wish us to abandon the term.

Memon: Isn't Dr. Malik's mail a clear proof? Not only him, but most Pakistanis and Afghans feel this term discriminatory.

Penn: If I become convinced that "Afpak" is a term that is either discriminatory or seriously misleading, then I will indeed drop it. On the other hand, I have not yet seen in this discussion any criticism of the term "Afpak" which I have found particularly concrete or convincing.

Memon: So you say that you will abandon it, when YOU feel it discriminatory. Don't you care about whether other members are convinced or not? When you decided to abandon the term "Middle East," you presented your point of view to the members, but did you wait to hear their answers about whether or not they are convinced? You didn't. It's just because you are administrator of this newsletter. Discrimination is a matter of human feelings. People not related to Afghanistan or Pakistan may not feel it in the same way that those people feel it. So the majority may not be convinced. However, the important point is, how much weight you give to feelings of "sufferers."

Penn: It may be worth noting, for example, that the word "Pakistan" has a rather similar etymology.

Memon: Well, this is one theory of about the word "PAKISTAN." I have read in the history books that the term was already in use in the region. So it seems that Choudhary Rahmat Ali just tried to explain it in a way which the British people could understand easily. One important point to note that there was no province named "Afghania" in British ruled India. Another explanation about the name PAKISTAN is that the word PAK means "holy" and STAN (as in Afghanistan, Turkistan, Tajikistan, etc.) means land. The purpose of dividing India and making a separate country was to make it a place suitable for Muslims, thus a "Holy Land" for Muslims. But even if the first theory is correct, it is quite different from current topic of AFPAK. In that particular case, those provinces were going to unite into one entity, where in case of AFPAK, it is not the case.

Conclusion: I strongly protest to the use of term AFPAK in Shingetsu Newsletters and request that it be abandoned.

13) From Ahmad Rashid Malik of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on July 9, 2009:

Mr. Mohammad Anwer Memon has profoundly and well explained the meaning and reasons for not using the derogatory term "Afpak" in our lexicon. He also well expalined the nomenclature of Pakistan. His explanation is close to that of historians and analysts of the Pakistan Movement and history.

Michael Penn's case is like the person who abuses someone's mother. On warning him not to abuse someone's mother, he asks for the reason for not abusing someone's mother. If you simply explain to him that it is morally incorrect, then he would say that you did not convince me, so I'll keep abusing his mother. There is no proof to provide to one who is abusing someone's mother.

The word "Pakistan" does not have a similar etymology to that of "Afpak." Rather, it explains the formation of a one unified nation and country. Michael Penn is wrong here again.

The Shingetsu Institute should simply convey to the Japanese Foreign Ministry not to use the term "Afpak" in their subsequent writings and talks.

14) From Keiji Uchida, a Japanese businessman, on July 9, 2009:

The word of Afpak reminds me of the word of Rimpac, Rim of the Pacific Exercise, which is quite military usage. Strictly speaking, Afpak is not a acronym, but a portmanteau word. I think the easy use of portmanteau words should be avoided not to cause any unnecessary confusion in our field as it is deeply related to histories and cultures.

15) From Wesam Abdeljabbar of Virginia Commonwealth University on July 9, 2009:

Sorry to jump in here, but I have to agree with Mr. Penn when he asks for evidence to show that the term in question is offensive.

As Muslims, we have a right to request that people desist in attacking our faith when we say so. This is because this is the only part of our identity that we feel is most important in defending. However, the critics of the SI in this regard are not complaining for the sake of their religion but for the sake of nationalism. The borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan (and all of the 57 "Muslim" states, for that matter) are artificial constructs arbitrarily drawn by Western colonialists. I, for one, am not willing to spend time and political capital for the sake of nationalism.

Leave nationalism to the non-Muslims to deal with and let us move on with higher priorities.

16) From Iftikhar H. Malik of Bath Spa University on July 9, 2009:

Over the past few days, I have been following the discussion on AfPak with an immense interest, and do feel that there are persuasive arguments on both sides. On the one hand, there is this usual rationale for acronymic usage of such terms, given the IT outburst and the resultant haste to 'simplify' complex terms and processes, while, concurrently, there is a genuine worry to avoid generalizations, not merely under the pretext of political correctness, but mainly to avoid being judgmental. I am afraid that this particular term is Pentagon-driven, and like most of the trajectories within the U.S. government, it is coming from Washington's most powerful establishment. To me, it is not surprising at all.

In my recent visit to the U.S. capital, I could see with my own eyes how far, during the Bush era, the Pentagon became zealously predominant, and that too at the expense of the State Department and such like. This predominance is not just about discretionary budgetary allocations; it equally stipulates an institutional lordship over the rest. Hillary Clinton's major challenge since her appointment as secretary of state is mainly to wrest back the significant foreign policy matters from the Pentagon to bring them back under the purview of her own department, which appears rather forlorn, exhausted, and marginal -- much like General Pervez Musharraf and his prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, now ensconced here in the UK following their second Hijrat (migration) {It is a different thing what these runaways have left behind in their country, other than a huge mess in every area, besides skiving with millions of pounds, including hundreds of expensive state gifts accounting for crores of rupees. Mind you, fighting corruption and establishing a transparent administration had once topped Musharraf's 7-point agenda}.

I have seen the term, AfPak is now being mentioned in some sections of Pakistani media, so why to blame just the Japanese officials, who, like Pakistani rulers and countless other such regimes elsewhere, have been faithful and non-objecting allies to their core. Don't forget that it was a major scoop for a battling Gordon Brown to be the 'first' amongst many other eager leaders to have been invited to Obama's White House. Even this drone attack duplicity is no more a secret; though the ideal thing would be both for the United States and Pakistan to be totally transparent about it, especially when there is a clear consensus in Pakistan against Talibanisation. Nevertheless, I would still prefer Southwest or Southwestern Asia over AfPak, since the ongoing campaigns cover a wider area, including the Kashmir Valley, northwestern Pakistan and, of course, Afghanistan. However, I do worry that the geo-politics and an Orientalist view of the people -- in this case the Pushtuns -- are the driving forces both at the official and populist levels, and that is where we academics have to be careful.

By the way, my ongoing research at the British Library, focusing on its India Office Records and at Oxford's Bodleian Library, is offering me a unique insight into an archival treasure trove on the Tirah Campaign of 1897-8. This was the largest military campaign ever undertaken by the British (Indian) Army between the Crimean War and the First World War. It included more than 40,000 troops, 60,000 pack horses, mules & donkeys, beside scores of special trains ferrying troops from Rawalpindi and elsewhere to Khushalgarh -- the railway terminus on the eastern banks of the Indus. This was the first-ever penetration by any European power into the Afridi Pushtun region zeroing in on Tirah-west of the Khyber Pass and south of Sufed Koh. (Alexander ventured a bit further north into Chitral, but fought some of the fiercest battles over the heights in Swat!) Not much academic work has been contributed about this campaign, although contemporary military and media accounts abound.

Looking at today's military, political, and media involvement/interest in these regions and across into Afghanistan, somehow makes me subscribe to the cyclic view of history. Using Charles Allen's term -- "the Allah's terrorists" -- is a normative characterization of the Afridi Pushtuns in these self-congratulatory accounts, including the reports by General Lockhart, Colonel Hutchinson, Captain Slessor, and so many others. Edward Said would have mounted a stronger case if he had chanced to read some of these narratives of Islam, mullahs, Pushtuns, and especially the Afridis of the Khyber and the Orakzais of the lower Tirah. But that is for another day or year, until I finish my study of colonial stalwarts like Lord Roberts, Lord Methuen, and so on!

However, I do feel that the ongoing hammer and anvil policy in the Pushtun regions on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan borders -- despite the gigantic and often unaccounted human, ecological annihilation, and a complete derision of Pushtuns, besides costing billions to North Atlantic states, Pakistan (and Japan) has miserably aggravated the situation on the ground. There is a greater need to discuss and even think of alternative policy options. Afghanistan is already, to many, a Qabristan (a graveyard), whereas the situation within the two Waziristans, five other tribal agencies, and across the entire Malakand Division, including Swat and Buner, does not augur much hope if one looks at the massive human dislocation.

Ironically, these monsoon clouds of an internecine warfare are definitely here to stay for some time to come!

17) From Ahmad Rashid Malik of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on July 10, 2009:

Mr. Keiji Uchida, thanks for your explanation. Your explanation will help me to comprehensively frame my reply for our members with regard to the term "AfPak."

Dr. Iftikar H. Malik has rightly reminded us of important historical facts and the politics surrounding the "Afpak" terminology. I have quoted his marvelous research about the Tirah campaign and included it in our monthly publication explaining the Operation Rah-e-Rast. I hope by now Mr. Michael Penn must have settled down and agree with us that this is enough to convince him.

18) From Michael Penn of the Shingetsu Institute on July 12, 2009:

It has been almost 48 hours since we have received a message about the "Afpak" debate, so I gather that it is now rolling to a stop. We now need to come to some kind of conclusion to this matter and to shape a Shingetsu policy that is minimally acceptable to all of us.

I would like to begin by reviewing the major arguments for and against the use of the term "Afpak" that have been presented over the course of the debate. Let's begin with the points in favor of the term:

a) The term is already very common in the international media and in political debate, and is not likely to disappear anytime soon. It has even appeared in some sections of the Pakistani media.

b) The term has been embraced by the Obama administration as defining its new foreign policy toward the region concerned.

c) The term represents the view that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not two separate problems, but part of a single issue demanding a unified approach to policy and strategy.

d) The term recognizes that there is debate in certain quarters about national boundaries largely drawn up by European, especially British, colonialists, and which therefore lack a degree of legitimacy.

e) Use of the term by Shingetsu could be part of a recognition that Japan's general approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan continues to be subservient to policies created in Washington.

f) The term "Afpak" is far more economical and convenient to employ than the alternative "Afghanistan and Pakistan."

g) There are other similar words in circulation, such as "Inpaki" and arguably "Pakistan" itself that do not seem to have provoked such a negative reaction.

The arguments adduced in opposition to the term "Afpak" have been the following:

a) The term sounds to some ears like a derogatory term on par with "Japs."

b) The term may re-open border conflicts between Pakistan and Afghanistan that may not otherwise have been at issue.

c) The term may be a little too similar to AFPAC (Armed Forces in the Pacific) that was employed in the World War Two era, or else to RIMPAC, the Rim of the Pacific Exercise.

d) The term may "establish boundaries on our thinking" or reflect subtle "calculations of power" that may influence us in ways we do not expect.

e) The term is a military phrase created by the Pentagon, and may be part of a program of psychological warfare, making us see events through the prism of the US military.

f) Discrimination is a matter of human feelings. If a people described by a term feel that it is discriminatory, then it is ipso facto discriminatory.

It is probably inevitable that individual Shingetsu Members, with our very different sets of priorities and values, will weigh out these arguments in our separate ways. As an individual scholar -- and at the risk of being called who-knows-what -- I must confess that I still see the arguments in favor of the term to be intellectually stronger than the arguments against.

However, there is at least one argument by the critics of the term "Afpak" that I cannot overlook: This is Mohammad Anwer Memon's point that discrimination is something that exists in the realm of human feelings and is to some degree in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I don't perceive how a term that groups Pakistanis together with Afghans should automatically be assumed to denote derision. No doubt, however, my insensitivity in this matter can be attributed to the fact that I am not counted among the "sufferers."

At any rate, since this debate has clearly revealed that at least a handful of Shingetsu Members strongly object to the use of the term "Afpak," it would be ungentlemanly of me to seek to impose it.

Here is my policy proposal: The Shingetsu Institute will not longer use the term "Afpak" as a shorthand term to denote "Afghanistan and Pakistan." However, the term may still appear occasionally in our Newsletters when we are quoting from outside sources or when specifically referring to the Obama administration's "Afpak strategy" or something of that nature.

I do not know whether or not Japanese government officials will begin making extensive use of the term "Afpak," but I must disabuse some of our members of their apparent notion that the Shingetsu Institute wields heavy influence over the calculations of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. I don't even know if any non-retired MOFA officials are reading the Shingetsu Newsletter.

At any rate, I assure you that Japanese diplomats enjoy my criticisms of their policies even less than those who are annoyed by my criticisms of the governments of Pakistan or Iran or China or Israel or the United States or whomever.

For those of you still trying to figure out whose side I am really on, let me save you some time: I am against any side when I believe they are wrong; and for any side when I believe they are right -- and I believe no side is always right or always wrong.

19) From Marie Thorsten of Doshisha University on July 12, 2009:

That's a good wrap up. Before we close the discussion, I also wanted to point out that veteran linguist and Pentagon critic Noam Chomsky also uses the term without hesitation. (excerpt below)

I wonder: Did the A-P word get invented after Barack Obama rejected calling everything the GWOT, which no one was ever comfortable with either? Donald Rumsfeld also tried to circulate the term "Long War" -- a prism of the military if there ever was one -- but hardly anyone used it, and now it's just a footnote.

A few years ago, Jairam Ramesh, an Indian politician, invented the portmanteau "Chindia," and my feeling is that never caught on either. So, maybe some of these terms really do go away if we boycott them.

Excerpt from Noam Chomsky, "Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours," Democracy Now!, July 3, 2009:

In AfPak, Afghanistan-Pakistan, as the region is now called, Obama is building enormous new embassies and other facilities on the model of the city within a city in Baghdad. These are like no embassies anywhere in the world. And they are signs of an intention to be there for a long time... Well, while Obama’s signaling very clearly his intention to establish a firm and large-scale presence in the region, he’s also, as you know, sharply escalating the AfPak war, following Petraeus’s strategy to drive the Taliban into Pakistan, with potentially awful results for this extremely dangerous and unstable state, which is facing insurrections throughout its territory. These are the most extreme in the tribal areas, which cross the AfPak border. It’s an artificial line imposed by the British called the Durand Line, and the same people live on both sides of it—Pashtun tribes—and they’ve never accepted it. And, in fact, the Afghanistan government never accepted it either, as long as it was independent.

20) From Ahmad Rashid Malik of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on July 13, 2009:

Thanks for the marathon debate on the term "AfPak." Your decision not to specifically use the term "AfPak" in the Shingetsu Institute's publications and debates is a welcome move. As I initiated this debate, I am thankful for the arguments in support and against the term. It is a success for those who accepted my argument not to use the term. I am thankful, however, even to all those who objected to my viewpoint.

Together we can build a peaceful Asia-Pacific from Japan to Kazakhstan. And, Michael, thanks for your great summation of the debate. Here is Japan and the rest of Asia building trust and respecting cultures.