Source: New Statesman
The west has often regarded the civilian dimension of Pakistani politics as a hindrance to its security priorities
Over the past decade one country has caused more alarm in the west than any other over its weapons of mass destruction. It is neither North Korea, nor Iraq, nor even Iran. Pakistan is the concern. That is why the decision was taken to tolerate General Pervez Musharraf when he seized power in a military coup in 1999. After 9/11, Pakistan became the front line in the so-called “war on terror”, and its leader became George W Bush’s main partner. Musharraf promised to do what he could to root out al-Qaeda camps on the border with Afghanistan, to turn in senior figures from that organisation, and to keep Islamists at bay within his own country. In return, billions of dollars were poured into Pakistan. Most of the cash went to the military.
Throughout this time, the army, and particularly the intelligence service, the ISI, maintained strong links with Islamist groups, while the father of the country’s bomb, A Q Khan, confessed to selling nuclear technology to Pyongyang. Khan was pardoned by Musharraf, and - with a nod from London and Washington - little more was said.
Musharraf was indulged, but not trusted. In the words of Franklin D Roosevelt, he might have been a son of a bitch, but at least he was America’s son of a bitch. He was encouraged to crack down on militants in the increasingly lawless northern region of Waziristan and to smash an Islamist protest at the Red Mosque in Islamabad.
Amid the crackdowns, Musharraf’s refusal to countenance the reinstatement of civilian rule put the relationship with the US under strain. He was finally prevailed upon to reach an accommodation with his erstwhile enemies, notably Benazir Bhutto. A disreputable deal was done, in which the scion of Pakistan’s best-known family would return from exile; all corruption investigations against her and her husband would be dropped. The constitution would be changed to allow Bhutto to return as prime minister for a third time, while Musharraf would remain president.
The assassination of Bhutto on 27 December destroyed these best-laid plans. As Ziauddin Sardar reports on page 18, the ISI was probably responsible for her death. Less clear is Musharraf’s connivance in it. Paradoxically, the less he may have had to do with it, the more that shows him to be a prisoner of the security services.
With Pakistan in chaos, the US, the UK, India and the other states that stand to lose most are close to despair. Their options are limited. They continue to support the elections, but may now feel obliged to back Nawaz Sharif, the only remaining opposition leader with national stature. Sharif, who was ousted by Musharraf in the 1999 coup, is much less of a friend of Washington than Bhutto was.
In any case, it is Musharraf who will pull the strings. That is why, as Andrew Stephen notes on page 22, western policy has failed so spectacularly. The US and UK are still quite happy to throw in their lot with autocrats, as long as they pursue similar interests. That could be Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Saudi royal family (feted only weeks ago in London), or, fleetingly, the torturers and murderers of states such as Uzbekistan (as long as they provided military bases for the Afghan war).
Most Pakistanis believe that Washington is content to work with a pliant military puppet. Rather than support the democratic revival of civil society, as seen in the lawyers’ movement and a reasonably critical press, the US wanted to use Bhutto as a democratic fig leaf. It has often regarded the civilian dimension of Pakistani politics as a hindrance to its security priorities.
Now the west must change tack. Musharraf should be encouraged to step down. The various political parties should be coaxed into forming a government of national unity, while the full independence of the judiciary should be restored (and the lawyers and judges released from jail).
Even where military means may be required, such as to prevent the Talibanisation of Waziristan, Musharraf is the person least likely to succeed. In ethical terms, he has been a disaster. In pragmatic terms, he has disappointed. Pakistan will never enjoy democracy - or stability - under his rule.
E-mail this article to a friend
3 responses so far ↓
1 ashghar // Jan 3, 2008 at 7:34 pm
As much as I supported Musharaf, I think he should step down now. The countries troubles may be due to the geopolitical situation but he as the leader of the nation has failed terribly. His staff (and hence himself) has been making one mistake after the other …
> sacking of chief justice without any justification, and then handling of the entire situation
> handling of lal masjid case from the start
> handling of 12-may incident in karachi
> handling of political parties
> choosing stupid allies such as the chaudhry brothers and others
> failure to utilize the incoming remmitences and aid to build a sustainable infrastructure- which has resulted in the worst electricity shortage during winters in the country!
> failure to build infrastructure to support industry
> a complete disaster in handling benazir’s murder case.
> handling of election case
> creating controversies, maligning pakistan army’s reputation
> pushing country to a turmoil and inability to manage things properly
I think, in light of these, Mr. Musharaf has failed as a leader. He’s not politically savvy, his staff has failed terribly in setting economic goals and creating economic strategies, his handling of internal disputes and problems has created further disputes and resulted in a string of suicide attacks. Basically as a leader he has:
> shown inability to provide security to the top popular leaders including his allies
> shown inability to manage the ‘highs’ in the economy
> shown inability to put country on a growth when the financial resources were available
> shown inability to use American aid in a way to secure Pakistan
In short, he should step down. He just can’t handle it. Let someone else handle the situation. No one can possibly make things worst!
Am I wrong?
2 Sufi // Jan 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm
There is no doubt that the Musharraf has become security risk. He has destroyed judiciary, imposed ristrictions on media and killed Benazir Bhutto.
He has to go now;he must step dawn immidiatly before the country plunges itno the deep chaos. The country is already facing numrous internal challanges of extremism,poverty,sky rocketing price hike,uncertainity and chaos.
He had usurped power and abused it ruthlessly. He is has lost the credibility to run the country. The downtrodden on the ground are the main victim. The goverment has raised gas prices and the burden has put on the consumers. Flour is out of the reach of the people-and now PETROL BOMB would soon be dropped on the poor in the best interest of the country because Musharraf comes first.
How pathetic! He is still adamant to run the country unconstitutionallyand illegally. The generals around him too have taken swear to destroy the country following the 1971 eposide.
The US, on the other hand needs chaos and bloodshed to prolong the so called war on terror. The US policy is very clear. To destory Pakistan and wipe out the people with the help of Msuharraf,GENERALS and the nortorious ISI.
Only God can save the country. The situation is becoming worse day by day. Fanatic ZIA killed the elected PM,but met a tragic death and went straight to the hell. And now Musharraf killed another PM in the garrison city of Pakistan. Where the army head quarters situated. How much Musharraf wants to weaken Pakistan. I think he has decided close the chapter of Pakistan. Because Musharraf comes first.
3 Omer // Jan 4, 2008 at 1:10 am
Your girlfriend doesnt like you anymore and wants to dump you but you blackmail n use every means possible to make her stick with you to avoid a feeling of extreme dejection.
That’s exactly what musharraf faces. He just needs little help in understanding that he needs to go. He can still do great service to the country by
1) Reappointing the judiciary.
2) Holding a completely fair election.
3) Stepping down.
Please for God sake, help us save this country.
Leave a Comment