Wednesday, 08.20.08
The End of the Musharraf Raj
FAROOQ NAEEM/AFP/Getty Images
Though he badly wants to be spared the humiliation of fleeing the country like so many of his predecessors, Musharraf will likely spend the next several years in some congenial, secluded spot in Saudi Arabia or Turkey, where he will steel himself for assassination attempts and, one assumes, work on his golf swing. The tragedy of Musharraf is that he had a rare opportunity to remake Pakistan as a stable, prosperous, Muslim democracy at peace with its neighbors, and he squandered it. His bafflingly bad decision to cling to power at all costs in 2002 will haunt him for the rest of his life.
When Musharraf first seized power in a 1999 military coup, he was a familiar political figure - Pakistan has oscillated between brief episodes of sclerotic civilian government and longer periods of military rule since its founding. The military men invariably appear as white knights ready to rescue Pakistan from the depredations of the corrupt landowning class, and committed to strengthening the country against India. Yet over time, the military leadership also grows power-hungry and corrupt. Fattened by American military aid, Pakistan’s military has, over the past three decades, sought to combat India and its internal enemies by embracing radical Islam, in large part - as Robert D. Kaplan has explained - to contain Indian power. Pakistan’s strategic embrace of Islamism has had profound cultural consequences, ranging from the adoption of Sharia law to the spread of madrassas, which have in turned stymied the progress of women and kept the literacy rate dismally low.
At times, it seemed as though Musharraf might reverse these trends. One often got the impression that he wanted to go down in history as a great modernizer, an Ataturk of Pakistan. The central reason Pakistan's democracy has never flourished is the outsized power of its landowning class, which elections have tended to entrench rather than undermine. Though rural Pakistan enjoys a higher standard of living than most of rural India, its society was untouched by the land reforms that drove social mobility in India, Taiwan, and South Korea. Instead, a more-or-less feudal state of affairs has remained in place. Which is to say, Musharraf had a great deal of modernizing to do. But rather than confront the landed oligarchy head on, Musharraf, with the aid of technocrats like Shaukat Aziz, chose instead to spur the urban economy. He embraced robust economic reforms that, along with post-9/11 economic aid and trade agreements, opened and transformed Pakistan’s economy, which, until the recent spike in food and fuel prices, was growing at a rate of 7 percent a year.
By strengthening Pakistan’s secular middle class, however, Musharraf in some sense sealed his own fate. Whereas the Islamist opposition to Musharraf's rule has proved the most notorious and violent, the liberal opposition, sparked by Musharraf's move against an independent-minded Pakistani jurist who proved resistant to government bullying, ultimately proved more potent. The economic boom gave Pakistan's long-suffering bourgeoisie the confidence to face down Musharraf over his declaration of martial law in 2007, and it fueled the success of middle-class candidates in Pakistan’s February elections, a key indication both that Musharraf’s days were numbered and that his reforms had helped loosen the grip of feudalism.
It’s worth wondering what might have happened had Musharraf taken a different path. During a landmark speech in January 2002, Musharraf essentially declared war on the Islamic extremists who’d been hollowing out the Pakistani state from within. Popular support for the government - and for the government’s decision to side with the United States - was extremely high. The United States and its allies had offered a generous aid package, and the Islamists were at their weakest. Had Musharraf sought a power-sharing arrangement with the secular opposition at this point, he would have had tremendous moral authority to crush armed opponents of the government and to reform Pakistani society. But instead Musharraf chose to nurse various Islamist guerrilla armies back to health, to continue to use them against India and, later, Afghanistan. He undermined the rule of law to cling to power, and in doing so he undermined all of the goals he had originally set out to achieve. So it is no wonder that Pakistan's tenuous alliance with the United States has also been discredited in the eyes of the Pakistani masses. After all, the United States stood by as Musharraf made a mockery of his democratic commitments, and turned a blind eye as he armed Islamist militants with one hand while "fighting" them with the other. Indeed, the alliance against Al Qaeda and the Taliban has been so discredited that elected governments in the provinces and in Islamabad are pursuing the same feckless policy.
Despite Musharraf's real accomplishments, he will be remembered as yet another corrupt dictator who left Pakistan a near-ruin. More depressing still, Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, the leaders of Pakistan's two main democratic parties, are both notorious thieves, scarcely better than Musharraf at his worst. But the tentative revival of Pakistan's secular center, still reeling from the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and still struggling against the kleptocratic machinations of the landowner class, just might offer a way forward.
Defending the dictatorS. Abbas Raza argues that Musharraf's leadership was better for Pakistan than the last two corrupt civilian governments. |
Selling outRandeep Ramesh believes Musharraf's supineness towards the United States betrayed the interests of the Pakistani people. |
After MusharrafTariq Ali explains how problems such as rampant inflation, lack of judicial independence, and an overreaching army will persist after Musharraf's departure. |
A liberal Pakistan?William Dalrymple offers a cautiously optimistic interpretation of Pakistan's political future. |
The forever warBill Roggio analyzes how Musharraf's departure will shape Pakistan's role in the the fight against Al Qaeda. |
(8)
Why does our government still champion short-term policies that have been historically proven to invite long-term blowback? What will we compromise in dealing with these new "thieves"?
As an aside: if we think the history of the CIA is complex, I'd love to see under the hood of Pakistan's ISI.
Saw you were a fan of film:
"Hollywood's Hero Deficit"
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/hollywood2019s-hero-deficit
General Pervez Musharraf�s so-called �enlightened moderation� failed to try to erase religious bigotry, extremism and fanaticism even from paper, yes, even from paper, i.e., from the Constitution of Pakistan. In this regard, please remember the words of General Ziaul Haq on the Constitution of Pakistan; when he had said that it is a bit of paper to which he can throw in the dustbin at his Will. Yes, the poison of religious bigotry, extremism and fanaticism is rooted in the Article 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan, wherein it is written that �Islam shall be the State Religion of Pakistan.� The first step was to root out the constitutional roots of such poison by repealing Article 2 and then enacting that Religion shall have nothing to do with the business of State; and that the Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Be that as it may, now, General Pervez Musharraf has resigned; and the point of concern is that till writing of these lines no political party sitting in the Parliament of Pakistan has deemed it fit and proper to even point out such a poison. So the conduct of the political parties sitting in the parliament is cruel and doubtful. How does the State Religion of Pakistan help to root out such poison? Even no one from Bush Government has publicly pointed out the constitutional roots of such a poison; so the question of rooting it out does not arise at all. Thus Religious Terrorism will continue to live with full force. Now, it is the time to SAY NO TO THE STATE RELIGION OF PAKISTAN. Now, it is the time to amend the Article - 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan in the befitting manner saying that religion shall have nothing to do with business of the State. If the present Parliament of Pakistan, at first, succeeds to purge that poison out of the Constitution; only then, it can be said with sure, that such act would help us to further flush it out of our society. There is no other constitutional, non-violent and peaceful way to deal with such poison.
General Pervez Musharraf�s so-called �enlightened moderation� failed to try to erase religious bigotry, extremism and fanaticism even from paper, yes, even from paper, i.e., from the Constitution of Pakistan. In this regard, please remember the words of General Ziaul Haq on the Constitution of Pakistan; when he had said that it is a bit of paper to which he can throw in the dustbin at his Will. Yes, the poison of religious bigotry, extremism and fanaticism is rooted in the Article 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan, wherein it is written that �Islam shall be the State Religion of Pakistan.� The first step was to root out the constitutional roots of such poison by repealing Article 2 and then enacting that Religion shall have nothing to do with the business of State; and that the Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Be that as it may, now, General Pervez Musharraf has resigned; and the point of concern is that till writing of these lines no political party sitting in the Parliament of Pakistan has deemed it fit and proper to even point out such a poison. So the conduct of the political parties sitting in the parliament is cruel and doubtful. How does the State Religion of Pakistan help to root out such poison? Even no one from Bush Government has publicly pointed out the constitutional roots of such a poison; so the question of rooting it out does not arise at all. Thus Religious Terrorism will continue to live with full force. Now, it is the time to SAY NO TO THE STATE RELIGION OF PAKISTAN. Now, it is the time to amend the Article - 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan in the befitting manner saying that religion shall have nothing to do with business of the State. If the present Parliament of Pakistan, at first, succeeds to purge that poison out of the Constitution; only then, it can be said with sure, that such act would help us to further flush it out of our society. There is no other constitutional, non-violent and peaceful way to deal with such poison.
I am reproducing my letter in TIMES (Mon Oct 14 2002)
Letter begins: As a Pakistani, I was saddened to see our President pictured as one of the "lesser evils" in Krauthammer's Essay. But I am confident that Musharraf got a kick out of it, was even secretly gleeful to be grouped with such malevolent giants as Stalin, the Shah of Iran and Marcos.
With all due respect to Franklin Roosevelt and his quip that Nicaragua's Somoza was "a son of bitch. But he's our son of a bitch," it is the mother who nurtures the infant and shows him how to walk and talk. So if the enfant terrible behaves inappropriately, please understand that s.o.b.s across the globe are only walking the walk and talking the talk. Letter ends.
If the bitch can two time why can't the s.o.b.s The message for US power brokers is very clear; Stop running the world like a brothel
SYED KHAWAR MEHDI Karachi
What surprised everyone was the speed with which the end came. Sure, things had turned negative for him since March 9th of 2007, when he "suspended" the chief justice. But even after the staggering defeat of his political allies in the February 2008 elections, he seemed fully capable of using the "divide and conquer" approach to keep the coalition from ever posing a serious threat. All of a sudden they revitalized the impeachment idea which Zardari had dismissed just a few months ago. People suspected that there was a deal between Musharraf and Zardari since the latter had been cleared of all crimes through the former's NRO. And now we have a situation where Zardari is ready to step into the shoes of Musharraf and hoping to save Musharraf from judicial prosecution by staving off the long overdue restoration of judges. Life is full of ironies....some bitter and some sweet.
An Escalation of the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Very Bad Policy.
Conservatives and liberals can argue the merits of the surge in Iraq , or the need to deal with terrorism now rather than later (or the reasons for Musharraf's retirement). I want to focus on something else: the impact of the perspective of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. I’m not implying that it is somehow homogeneous, just relevant; more relevant than my opinion at least.
Taking the war on terror back to Afghanistan (and most likely Pakistan) is bad for a number of reasons: the perspective of the international Muslim community; the fact that a military solution has not worked thus far, so why keep kicking a dead horse (especially when it has the potential to trample you); the delicate balance of power in the immediate theatre and in the broader region; the likely negative reaction of other states; and last but not least, its potential impact on the price and availability of oil.
Pakistan ’s reaction to the Bush Doctrine has been somewhat mixed. Musharraf was caught in the middle between pleasing the U.S. to ensure continued military and economic support, and the preferences of his constituents who resent the U.S. presence there. The region is already very unstable because of this tension between the US applying pressure from the outside and the internal desire of the populace to rid themselves of the unwanted American presence.
We can say the exact same thing about Afghanistan , Karzai is in a very similar position as Musharraf was. In 2006, Karzai had to start rearming the warlords to maintain order. Similarly, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan - a loose group of Waziristani chieftains, closely associated with the Taliban, who now serve as the de facto security force in charge of North and South Waziristan .
If Senator Obama becomes president, and refocuses the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan , the best we can hope for is another five to six years of what we’ve seen in Iraq . But this best-case scenario is very unlikely.
In addition to a multiple-front war, we would be dealing, not with a fallen state as with Iraq , but with two established states. This could possibly work in our favor as long as they continue to remain on our side. But as already mentioned, the tension is high, and there is a very delicate balance keeping Karzai in power. What if Karzai falls to a coup or assassination? And now with Musharraf stepping down, what happens if Musharraf’s successor plays to the popular demands of the people? We could find ourselves fighting the armies of the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Pakistan , in addition to insurgent forces there. If we consider the history of this region, we realize that this is not as far-fetched as it might sound on the face of it.
As we all know, the Taliban was comprised of Sunni Islamists and Pashtun nationalists (mostly from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan ). The Taliban initially enjoyed support from the U.S. , Pakistan , Saudi Arabia , and the United Arab Emirates in the early 1980s to fight the Soviets. By 1996, the Taliban had gained control of most of Afghanistan , but its relationship with the U.S. and most of the rest of the world became strained. Most of the international community supported the Taliban’s rival, the Afghan Northern Alliance .
Still, even after the U.S. began to distance itself from the Taliban in late 1997, Pakistan , Saudi Arabia , and the United Arab Emirates continued to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Even after 9/11 when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates officially stopped recognizing the Taliban, Pakistan continued to support it. The Taliban in turn, had tremendous influence in Pakistani politics, especially among lobby groups- as it virtually controlled areas such as the Pashtun Belt ( Southeast Afghanistan , and Northwest Pakistan ) and Pakistan-administered Kashmir .
Going back to the perception of the international Muslim community … When the U.S. demanded that the Taliban turn Bin Laden over, it initially offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan to be tried by an international tribunal operating according to Sharia law. But Pakistan was urged by the U.S. to refuse. Again, prior to the beginning of U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan , the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden according to Islamic law, but the U.S. refused. After the U.S. began air strikes, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral state to be tried under Islamic law, but the U.S. again refused. This is important because in the eyes of the greater international community, the war in Afghanistan was justified (at least initially). But in the eyes of the international Muslim community, especially given the Taliban’s offer to turn over Bin Laden, it was an unnecessary war. This, combined with the preemptive war in Iraq , has led many Muslims to equate the war on terror with a war on Islam. Senator Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan will only serve to reinforce that impression.
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic political party in Pakistan , won elections in two out of four provinces in 2003, and became the third largest political party in the Pakistani parliament – with substantial support from urban areas (not just border regions). This speaks to the tremendous influence Islamic groups enjoy in Pakistan .
This strong influence is fueled by the fact that the Pashtun tribal group is over 40 million strong. The Taliban continues to receive many of its members from this group today. In fact, the Pakistani army suffered humiliating defeat at the hand of these so-called “insurgents.” Finally, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Many saw the Pakistani government’s acknowledgment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as not only a military necessity, but also a political one as well – a concession in response to the growing internal pressure on the Musharraf administration from the people of Pakistan who resent the U.S. presence and involvement in the region.
Just consider the many, many public protests against the Pakistani government’s compliance with the United States . For instance, on January 13, 2006 , the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola , Pakistan . Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area.
On October 30, 2006 , the Pakistani military, under pressure from the U.S. , attacked a madrasah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan . Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced the U.S. military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America !” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam. On November 7, 2006a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, without ever offering their condolences to the families of the slaughtered children.
Last year troubles escalated surrounding the Pakistani government’s siege of the Red Mosque where more than 100 people were killed. Even before Musharraf’s soldiers took the Lal Masjid the retaliations began. Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center.
There are countless more examples; too many to mention in detail. Likewise in Afghanistan ; April 30, 2007 for example, when hundreds of Afghans protested US soldiers killing Afghan civilians. Why can’t the powers that be recognize that we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly seven years, and in Iraq for over five; a military approach is not working. If we must focus the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan , let’s focus on winning the hearts and minds of the beautiful people of these countries, rather than filling their hearts with bitterness and hatred toward us. With their support, we can offer them the financial and technical assistance that they need to rebuild their infrastructure, their agriculture and their economy. With their support, we can offer them the needed resources to rebuild their human capital and start attracting foreign direct investment. But without their support, we cannot possibly have any positive influence in this region at all; our only influence will be that of brute force, bribery of corrupt officials, and outright coercion. It will be a long, hard, costly and bloody endeavor, and the people of these countries will continue to suffer.
Let’s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Let’s not also forget that this is a highly Muslim-concentrated area, the Islamic concept of duty to come to the aid of fellow Muslims would no doubt ensure a huge influx of jihadists in this type of a scenario. Why on earth would we want to intentionally provoke a situation that would not only radicalize existing moderates in the region, but could also potentially cause the influx of a concentration of radical jihadists from elsewhere into an already unstable region (that has nuclear weapons no less)? We would be begging for a nuclear proliferation problem.
We like to assume that we would have the upper hand in such a scenario. But we have been in Afghanistan since October of 2001. And we have yet to assume the upper hand. The fight in Afghanistan has the potential to become much more difficult than it already is. Nor would it be unheard of to expect other major powers to back these radical jihadists with economic and military assistance in much the same way that the US backed the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union . Beyond the fact that roughly 1/5 of the world’s population is Muslim (approximately 1.5 billion people- 85% Sunni, 15% Shia, Ibadiyyas, Ahmadis and Druze), we have to remember that Muslims are the majority in 57 states (out of 195). Most of these have Sunni majorities, which gives them added political power.
China has traditionally backed Pakistan . What would China do if the US were to find itself at war with Pakistan ?
India has tremendous economic and security interests in the region. Let’s not forget that while India has been in nearly continual conflict with Pakistan , primarily over the Kashmir issue, it has the second largest Muslim population in the world next to Indonesia . What happens if India were to side with the U.S. in a potential conflict with Pakistan ? It will have a very difficult task justifying that position with its very large Muslim population. A U.S.-Indian alliance could also spark more terrorist attacks in the Kashmir region; it could also create added tension to the already tenuous relationship between India and Iran , which has a long history of support for Pakistan . Or, if radicals gained control of Pakistan ’s nuclear arsenal, a nuclear attack against India could spark a nuclear altercation between the two nuclear powers. Or, what if radicals then gained control of India ’s nuclear arsenal?
On the other hand, what happens if India for some reason (either via a coup or due to Muslims gaining the upper hand in the long-running Hindu-Muslim conflict) were to side with Pakistan against the United States ? It seems unlikely now, but not completely unrealistic considering the on-again, off-again relationship between the U.S. and every country in that region. We constantly flip-flop in our foreign policy. An attack on Pakistani soil would be a perfect example of this type of wishy-washy foreign policy, as the Bush administration guaranteed Musharraf that the U.S. would never do such a thing (as much as Karzai wants us to). Speaking of Karzai, what if he is ousted and we find ourselves at war with Afghanistan . What would India do then, given its friendship with Afghanistan ?
Also consider the U.S. position on Kashmir , which has a predominantly Muslim population. Pakistan wants a plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 UN resolution, to essentially allow the people to decide which state the region should belong to. India refuses a plebiscite, claiming Kashmir and Jammu as an integral part of India . The U.S. is arming both sides through billions in aid to Pakistan and selective proliferation to India , but insists Pakistan stem terrorist activities flowing from inside its borders, and at the same time discourages India from attacking Pakistan . Yet an escalation of war in the area could backfire badly.
Beyond all that we still have to consider a slew of other states such as Saudi Arabia , Iran , and Russia – not to mention the central Asian states - all of which have economic and/or political and security interests in the region. How will they react to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan ?
Finally, what would such a scenario do to oil prices and availability? I’m 100% in favor of America developing alternative energy sources, but again that’s my opinion, and the oil conglomerates have not been listening to me. Unfortunately, the facts are that the oil lobby is a very powerful entity. Even more to the point, our country could not ween itself off of oil overnight, even if it wanted to. We have to consider what such an escalation would do to oil prices, and the overall availability of oil.
The oil embargo of 1974 (in support of Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war against Israel ), in retaliation against the U.S. for its support of Israel had devastating economic and political consequences on the U.S. and much of Europe . Also, the more recent boycott of Danish products across the Muslim world, in retaliation for the 2005 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, demonstrates the ability of the international Muslim community to act collectively.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would also demonstrate the fickle and hypocritical nature of America ’s foreign policy. We supported the Taliban when it served our interests (to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan ) in spite of clear human rights abuses. But now we condemn the Taliban (and much of the Muslim world) over the very same human rights abuses (against women … etc.), while we also continue to ignore similar or same human rights abuses in China, Saudi Arabia, Israel … etc., when it’s convenient for us to do so. We did the same thing with Saddam Hussein; arming him in spite of clear and egregious human rights abuses when he was our ally, and condemning the same actions when he wasn’t.
The U.S. practices selective proliferation with India , and selective sovereignty with those it chooses (today Pakistan , tomorrow someone other than Pakistan ), while at the same time violating the sovereignty of other states- depending on its whim at the time.
The United States government insisted that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden, but the United States itself has refused on several occasions to return foreign nationals (being held on death row in America) to their state of domicile because the U.S. wanted them to face execution, and the home state did not uphold the death penalty. We also continue to refuse to acknowledge the ICC because we don’t want American military personnel tried in an international court. How is that so different from the Taliban wanting Bin Laden tried in an Islamic court?
Rather than blindly accepting that America holds some God-given moral superiority over the rest of the planet, we need to realize that everywhere, humanity has a God-given right to live, love and prosper. Our children have the right to grow up in an environment free of air strikes and constant assault from an external enemy. They have the right to attend schools without fear of being maimed and killed inside of them. And they have the right to be children, instead of orphans. No state has the right to take that away from your children, or from mine. Imagine now that Senator Obama is planning to escalate the war on terror where you live.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
It's good to see the back of this two-timin' two bit dictator regardless of how the vacuum is filled. It's unfortunate that the US dropped 12 billion dollars into this sinkhole.
Posted by seance | August 20, 2008 2:09 PM