War is the father of all and king of all. Some he shows gods, others as men. Some he makes slaves, and others free.-J .M. Coetzee in Life & Times of Michael K. This ongoing war, the Anglo-American so-called "war on terrorism," shall make us, the Pakistanis, slaves of the West - that is, if it has not already done so. The massive unending American-Western political pressure, the accompanying aid dollars affliction and persuasive coercion has compulsively subjugated the entire Pakistani political leadership to sing for the Anglo-American warmongers as "gods." The West's 'mantra' of war against our own citizens is our leaders' command. Indeed, the public sentiment on this issue is an entirely different matter - the people want the Americans-Westerners out of their country's affairs lock, stock and barrel. The question is: Why would any sovereign, dignified and independent nation want itself to be turned into slaves? Ironically, our present is not any different from the recent or remote past. The pattern has been obvious since Ayub Khan. For example, let's start from the recent past. No one knows exactly what conversation took place between the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Mian Nawaz Sharif and the former American President Bill Clinton way back then. However, rumour has it that the US president (the Big Brother) told the Pakistani prime minister: "Mr Prime Minister, you will do as you are told. No questions - or the aid dollars will be frozen." The former prime minister complied and satisfactorily "sang the song" that the Clinton administration wanted to hear. Articulation and expression of one's personal social concerns and the deliberation of political issues in a free and independent manner must be an excruciating experience at the level of highest political office holders when a Third World president or the prime minister meets the White House occupant and has the explicit intentions to ask for American dollars in aid. Political equality cannot be expected in such a political discourse nor is there a possibility to engage in a reciprocal agreement of equal benefits when such a psychological-political-ethical state of disequilibrium exists. Independence of political perspectives, actions and the ability to communicate and to engage the other side on a level of mutual respect falls altogether in a different category of discourse in intra-nations relations. Ironically the Pakistani leadership has never opted for an equal partnership (lack of national self-reliance) and has timelessly served the global agendas of the US and the West. In the epic film The Godfather Michael explains to Kate: "My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse...Luca Brasi held a gun to his head and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract..." As a symbolic analogy, this statement offers remarkable insight and reflection into the American political "modus-operandi" when dealing with non-Western nations and their leadership. A three-minute telephone call from General Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State, was enough for General Pervez Musharraf to drag this nation into a war - a destructive war that continues to this day threatening the very existence of this nation. How much more complacent can a nation's so-called leader be? Indeed, the Americans loved the dawn of another long dictatorship in Pakistan. Why wouldn't they? Pervez Musharraf sang their song all the way The Americans then made an offer (they call it a brokered agreement under their sponsorship) to Benazir and General Musharraf that they could not refuse: an NRO and a power-sharing formula. The rest is no secret. When Benazir pushed for public mobilisation, she posed a threat to go independent and seek a nationalistic agenda, she was permanently removed from the political equation - her continued presence on the political scene was not in the interest of Big Brother and his accomplices. The rules of the game could not be changed - the agenda remained unaltered. The point that I have been belabouring so far is this: the media reports are that President Obama has proposed a May 6-7 Afghanistan-Pakistan-US summit in Washington DC to sort out the problems in the region. In my considered opinion, the objective of this proposed summit is to seek unanimous approval of Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan policy of escalating war in both countries. Indeed, if the present political leaderships of the two countries are to be exclusively invited, then the objectives of the summit stand clear: Big Brother, working within the parameters of "an offer you cannot refuse" will dictate the rules of political-military engagement, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that best serve the interests of the US and its allies, including that of Israel and India. Indeed, the Pakistani delegates will be told, again and again, that it is not India but our own citizens in FATA that are our enemies - kill them all. Afghans will be persuaded to eliminate their own blood and kin as well. As we are all aware, the contemporary political leadership both in Pakistan and Afghanistan is far too dependent on the US's support to voice any alternative political strategy opposed to Obama's views. The Big Brother in the White House will most likely ask his guests: Sing, birds, sing the US "mantra" - and in all probability that is what the gathered delegates will do. An Obama-mania 'symphony' of accord to escalate war in the region. Business as usual... However, if Barack Obama is seriously interested in conflict resolution in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the interest of humanitarian ideals (how sad that "killing" has become a common usage and a part of strategic terminology in the Anglo-American policy affirmations and political decisions), then he should arrange another People's Summit in which invitees will be different people then the incumbent leaderships in both countries. President Obama will have to invite civil society spokespersons, non-party affiliated academics, leaders of the lawyers movement in Pakistan, pro-democracy former army officers, journalists, policy analysts, members of socio-religious organisations, social workers, etc in a fear-free, independent, open discussion to find out what ails Pakistan and Afghanistan and who are the real enemies of these two Muslim nations. Barack Obama may get the surprise of his life President Obama can dedicate himself to use the power of communicative innovation, hook-up with the masses' sentiments, put aside the misguided ideological fundamentalism of the Bush era and define or reinvent "Obamaism" as a political philosophy in terms of pragmatic transformation rather than the traditional American doctrine of "Big Brother" who has been laying down the rules of game vis--vis Pakistan and Afghanistan for decades now. At present, Obama's rhetoric of "change" cannot suffice in the face of transformations taking place the world-over. An urgent, essential, fundamental re-definition of US foreign policy objectives in regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan are needed. If "sing-birds-sing" the usual "mantra" of Americanism at the May 6-7 summit, it will have catastrophic results. No one in the present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan believes in American benevolence, moral leadership or its lofty rhetorical, empty and meaningless pursuit of democratic ideals in foreign lands Common people will tell you: America is the naked face of brutal atrocities against humanity. Quite earnestly: that is the real issue. But how to stop it? That should be Obama's agenda of the May 6-7 summit The writer is a professor, policy analyst and conflict-resolution expert. E-mail: hl_mehdi@hotmail.com