Pakistan: an alternative view
For a different take on what's been going on in Pakistan, I recommend by the respected analyst Anatol Lieven in today's International Herald Tribune. He writes; "There is no point in being too high-minded about these things. Pakistan is a hard country to govern, and the United States gives equal support to far more oppressive regimes elsewhere in the Muslim world." I wonder if you agree?
There is much about the analysis which is correct. However, there are a few omissions and problems. It's true that Pakistan's Supreme Court was likely to invalidate Musharraf's election and that was a good reason for the state of emergency but one crucial item omitted is the fact that in the last few weeks, the Islamists have attempted assassinations of both Bhutto and Musharraf and are becoming bolder and more brazen in their behavior as evidenced by their openness. I think President Bush finessed the problem fairly well by publicly calling for return to democracy while privately giving tacit approval to Musharraf's actions. Yes the prior elected governments were very weak and corrupt. It is not logical for the US or any other country to allow its foreign policy to be governed by anything but its own best self interest, certainly not by some naive sense of morality instead. At this time a democratically elected government which includes the Islamists would be a disaster for both the US and Pakistan. Musharraf has been the ONLY factor preventing the US from attacking Pakistan since 9-11. Even so, his policies have been weak and ineffective, he didn't start taking any meaningful action against the terrorists finding sanctuary in his country until they tried to assassinate him twice in one day. It was an unfortunate turn of phrase that President Bush used saying that Musharraf could not be President and Commander of the army at the same time since that is exactly what Bush himself is. Yes the Pakistani constitution forbids it but these are not normal times and in fact Pakistan is in a state of Civil War.
What's been left unsaid is that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of the extremists is as unacceptable as Iran acquiring the technology to build nuclear weapons. The US would be forced to make a choice between a devastating pre-emptive first strike taking out every possible hiding place in the country or face the certainty that al Qaeda would acquire and eventually find a way to detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city, probably Washington DC or New York City....or both. This may not be of much concern to people around the world who have not considered what the American reaction will likely be. With America's arsenal of ten thousand thermonuclear weapons, there won't be much left of the Islamic world in the aftermath and in the long run it may spell all of our ends. America will not allow itself to be enslaved by Islam any more than it would allow itself to be enslaved by Communism and we know what the US nuclear policy was in regard to that.
Complain about this postIn the next article down from that one, there was an article about child soldiers who are tried for their crimes when they have grown up. It makes me ashamed to be alive.
Complain about this postMusharraf's move to emergency rule is just another manifestation of this man's treachery and incompetence.
I guess he is paying the price for past duplicity in allowing the militia strongholds to flourish and embed in Waziristan, their very influence dividing Pakistani political opinion and fueling unrest between those for democracy and those sympathetic to Taleban ideals/tribal Islamic militia control. It is difficult to understand what prospects the followers of the latter hope their militant heroes can bring to the future of Pakistan other than constant conflict. Conflict is their trade; it is what they live for; it is what they know; it is what they seek to do. They are not interested in peace - peace has no place for them.
Musharraf's double-talking forked tongue has confused his people and disillusioned his followers. The tribal Islamic militia and Taleban movement in the Waziristan district were permitted, even protected by the Pakistani Government. Then Musharraf sent a mixed message to Pakistanis by publicly committing Pakistan to join the war on terror. Did he believe he could pay lip service only to this undertaking, without having to act upon it? The US offered significant financial assistance to Musharraf if he actively implemented a strategy to eradicate Islamic terrorist militia and Taleban strongholds from Pakistan's northern provinces - strongholds which have provided a life line to the Taleban fighting in Afghanistan. Keen to grab this funding, Musharref sent ineffective army contingents to the northern provinces, merely to give the appearance of a will to rout the tribal militia. His Government troops were massacred, many bodies found headless. The outcome?Musharraf signed peace Agreements with the War Lords instead!
Pressure from the West compelled Musharraf to shift his sympathies and to be seen to be doing something about his "leaking" borders. He sent in the militia to quel the Red Mosque debacle. This served his own interests, by sending the message to the militants that they may control the hills, but had to tow the line in Pakistani cities where they did not have control or support. It also pacified the West's fears that Musharraf lacked the political will to control the Islamic extremists in Pakistan. The Red Mosque arrests angered the provincial tribal leaders. They tore up their peace Agreements and are now genuinely hostile and distrustful of the Pakistani Government. Hardly surprising. Musharraf has played the Pakistani people for fools in his endeavours to maintain favour with all sides, protecting no political ethic other than to ensure he maintains his seat of power.
Musharraf's greed for US dollars became the factor in his undoing, which, by the way were never paid - the US remaining unconvinced of Musharref's political will to eradicate Taleban and tribal war lords from his country.
A leader who is genuinely pro democracy and anti-terrorism must prevail, although it is a difficult call with the complex allegances of Muslims. They are a terribly confused culture. Most of their leaders have abused their peoples and positions of power. Maybe a woman will be less power-mongering, more compassionate and in spite of past clouds of corruption, perhaps Bhutto can be more honest. Bhutto has the ability, lets hope she can muster the capability with international support - necessary before she can hope to openly and publicly campaign for office. It does put the US between a rock and a hard place to now switch horses, having previously supported Musharref, but who else could they have negotiated with in attempts to stem the tide of Taleban crossings into and out of Pakistan? It is vital that the US keep open the corridors of dialogue with Pakistan, whomsoever its leader may be, at least and until the Islamic extremist militants in the northern provinces are brought under control and all risk of nuclear arsenal falling into Taleban or Al Qaeda hands is removed.
Complain about this postMr Lieven is very right,with regard to his analysis.The country has always been hard to govern.It's legal system is far from perfect,and it's political system less so.For the West to try to criticise Pakistan for 'lack of democracy',is not to understand the realities of the place.
Complain about this post