November 6, 2007
Column: Beware the lure of false stability in Pakistan
Sometimes it can be fun to be the bearer of bad tidings. On Saturday night I was able to stroll over to a senior member of the British foreign policy establishment and tell him that a state of emergency had been declared in Pakistan. Lawyers, politicians and human rights activists were under arrest. The senior member looked suitably concerned, got out his BlackBerry, called up the news and began to read. “Oh dear,” he said.
Oh dear, indeed. It is a cliché of the international relations business that “Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world”. This is a nation with nuclear weapons, al-Qaeda bases, large lawless areas bordering Afghanistan and a rising tide of domestic militancy and terrorism. The US and its allies have treated General Pervez Musharraf as a crucial partner in trying to deal with these problems. But the general’s latest move threatens to produce turmoil and strips away the facade of constitutionalism that made it easier for the west to support him. So the western powers have to ask whether the general is – as they say – now part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
The remainder of this column can be read here; comments can be made below.
One cannot help but think when reading this piece that it comes from a conversation you had on Saturday night after you delighted in sharing your Blackberry report on developments in Islamabad. The discussion with a Washington or Whitehall official seems to have gone like this: What position should “we” take on this mess?
Any analysis from a newspaper-of-record that omits the fact that Washington has placed two horses in this race–Musharraf and Bhutto–seems to be positioning. The Pentagon has their money on Mushharraf, and not without reason or self-inflicted disappointment, as you have well noted. It is also well noted recently in this paper that State and the neocons have their money on Bhutto, who is also not following instructions at the moment and seems intent on being a martyr, spare efforts of Musharraf.
Could you add not a thought on London-based Sharif, hiw backing and the threat his imminent (second attempt) return has posed? What about thoughts as to whom is filling his deep pockets?
It is true that international corporate communications once drew upon the tricks of the diplomacy trade. It seems now that foreign relations communicators are thinking like Coca-Cola reps.
Meanwhile, another country (US/neocon-targeted market) is on the verge of collapse as a state. No doubt there will be business opportunities in the chaos that will follow. Expectations continue to fall, and will, until the next cataclysmic failure that sets the stage for the clever to display clear vision in a crisp soundbyte.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 9:35 am | Report this comment“false stability”–When was Pakistan a deeply set rock in the region?
Sorry, but like jérôme-in-paris wrote yesterday, I’m perplexed.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 10:08 am | Report this commentThis State of Emergency has no value or problem for common citizrn of Pakistan. I think Musharraf is doing good job and now our economy is in good shape and we are fighting with extremist succussfully. The Superme Court Judge was undoing all good deed just to seek cheap popularity and he has correctly been ousted. Do not worry about democracy….. more than that we need education…..
Posted by: Khalid Masood | November 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am | Report this commentEducating people about the ills of dictatorship is perhaps what Khalid Masood meant by putting it before democracy. I fully agree with his diagnosis!
Posted by: Mohsin Ali | November 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am | Report this commentSo long as Shaukat Aziz stands besides Musharraf, so will I (not that it matters much). Nonetheless, time moves all along and Pakistan is approaching a critical hour.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 11:51 am | Report this commentMan…. this is more interesting than it looks:
- The US has given the Pakistani army $10 bn since 9/11 and holding up general Musharraf (a military dictator) as “our partner in the war on terror”.
- All the while Musharraf has been retreating in the face of extremist Taliban-style forces and undermining civil society and the rule of law whilst being hugged close by that fool Tony Blair and his American masters.
- Musharraf also tested nuclear weapons and got away with it as “our ally in the war on terror”.
- The $10 bn army of Pakistan has been dropping its trousers and bending over when confronting the Taliban and their allies in Waziristan and elsewhere. The top brass have been getting richer because Musharraf allowed them to get involved in business. The lower ranks are entirely demoralised and fed up.
- The secular opposition, in the persons of Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif, continue to lose support because of their record of misrule and corruption and because of Ms. Bhutto’s obvious selling out to the Yanks.
- The US is standing behind Musharraf now, ready to stab him in the back, if:-
i-) a more brutal general can be found to impose “stability” and be the new “ally in the war on terror” or if
ii-) the aforementioned corrupt politicians can be resurrected for helping Uncle Sam whilst helping themselves to millions and billions of Dollars of the aid that never reaches the people.
- The cat will be truly set among the pigeons if the inevitable march of Pakistan towards Talibanisation comes to its logical conclusion and we get a coup by the junior officers who, unlike Musharraf and other former military and non-military leaders of Pakistan, are from the lower echelons of the society and in league with various bearded Mawlanas and Sheikhs. Suddenly you will get the $10 bn army turning its guns against Nato and US Forces (this time with high morale and nukes at the ready).
DOES UNCLE SAM DESERVE THE FRIENDS IT GETS? IT SURE DOES..
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentWho seriously thinks Pakistan can be Talibanised? Chaos and struggle, yes. Karachi’s energy suppressed by a Taliban-styled regime? Never. The suggestion of such a risk by the US State Department should be dismissed quickly as another fear device.
Pakistan in crisis will be real enough in economic and civil-war terms for the Pakistani people. The focus now should be on the incompetence at the top of the US government. These are not the 1950s, 60s, 70s or even 80s, where policy decisions in the Subcontinent can escape scrutiny until some symposium ten years later.
If Pakistan descends into a hell, Washington may just find itself increasingly underfunded in the very near term.
Any insights on how Mr Putin may be assessing or playing upon events in Pakistan or whether he is discussing strategy with Mr Sharif? Also, India has sent some clear and critical messages to Washington in recent weeks about its concerns for Rice’s friendship with Mme Bhutto.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentHi WCM,
“Who seriously thinks Pakistan can be Talibanised?”
I heard the same noises when the “Islamic Revolution” was taking place in Iran. Who would have believed it?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pm | Report this commentYou have nailed it right on the head. Terrorism and islamic fanaticism is a bigger immediate threat to Pakistan and Pakistanis than it is to the West. Most people in Pakistan realise this. Talk t anyone in the streets and they will tell you how much they hate Musharraf. It is time the West supported their own democratic ideals in our unfortunate country
Posted by: Farrukh Omar | November 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Report this commentPakistan is not Iran in 1979.
Gideon has laid out a good argument for why Musharraf’s domestic support is so low. Likely irreversible. Neither Bhutto nor Sharif can lead a credible government. That leaves, as Gideon has noted, a new junta as the only viable option.
Washington set this scenario in motion. Western capitals cannot achieve anything by meddling more in Pakistan’s domestic politics. Washington must be held accountable for its bad judgment.
Musharraf is a tiresome figure, no doubt. Nonetheless, he has consistently demonstrated that he is trying to do a tough job and seems not be aprt of a wider and corrupt conspiracy.
If I were him, I would consider expelling immediately the legions of US CIA operatives in Pakistan. These sorts–usually Beltway of corporate has-beens–can be seen on any day transiting in Dubai, Qatar or Bahrain. They are a very visible face in Pakistan and on Gulf beaches and Duty Frees on their many funded leaves. Such a move would serve him well and cost no one any loss of intelligence.
Also, I would expose some data on the “slave trade” of Pakistani men that is occurring. The worker populations of the Gulf states is legendary, but the numbers are being brought into Iraq through US or multinational demand is little known except by those of us who have shared some unscheduled flights with hundreds of Pakistani and Nepalese men.
Remember how this scenario plays out on US television. Pakistan is not just another nuclear-empowered Islamic country; the images strike an even deeper and unknown fear in Americans: the vast, unwashed masses.
Focus on Washington’s games, and pray Pakistan will find its way. An ungodly civil war is in the offing, and the blood will be on the hands of Rice, Gates, Cheney, Rumsfeld and decades of failed US policy.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pm | Report this commentHi WCM,
I agree with you that the US will inevitably seek to install another junta. I also do see that at present the foes of Musharraf appear to be lawyers, judges, Human Rights activists and students (echoes of Iran in 79).
However, a lot has been changing in the Pakistani society and army and I think we should not discount a rising by the lower ranks of the army, a sweeping up of the elite that have run Pakistan badly for 60 years and some seemingly pious (bearded) colonels or captains taking charge with an Islamist ideology and a fierce dislike for the Americans and the very liberals who are today opposing Gen Mushy. (Another echo of Iran).
Certainly, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were not the only blowback from the war in Afghanistan.
I watch with interest!.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Report this commentRice should have looked at such parallels as closely as she claims to have studied Soviet history.
Much has been written on emptiness of the War of Terror concept. Today, sadly, Washington has failed to demonstrate it has achieved much on its WoT agenda, even by the most self-serving standards. Pakistan is testimony that Washington’s actions under the dubious mandate of the War on Terror are putting non-US parts of the world at great risk.
The world needs to see some intelligent leadership. Washington cannot deliver such. If Europe or the Middle East fail to do so, then look to Dr Putin to set the new media agenda.
The US Government seems neither to attract nor retain individuals of proven competencies in high office. This is a contemporary phenomenon with origins in the salary divide that made Wall Street and the private sector the intelligent choice in the 1990s.
Posted by: WCM | November 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm | Report this commentThere is a scenario that could turn Pakistan into another Iran or certainly lapse into civil war eventually breaking up …that would be a split in the army ..Pakistan is a state but by no means a nation…it is full of significant ethnic divides, with only Islam being a binding force, and it is divided on religious/secular lines too. The government has already lost control of the mountainous regions to the indigenous tribes. The army is the only unified institution …not the government. That is why I doubt Musharraf will give up his uniform without being forced to. . The army has elements of of radical Islamist , that was clear in the handling of the Red Mosque and the military’s intelligence branch (ISI) has Taliban sympathizers. …remember it helped the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in the 1980s in Afghanistan…. ideology is in the ranks. If the army remains united, I think Musharraf hangs on or he will be replaced by another military man…we should be watching the army not Musharraf and the Chief Justice ….its some group of generals that are important to this outcome…some leaning toward Islamists…some with Musharraf…some with Bhutto …some with ????? that are the real key here…we should for the time being hope that the army stays united…that is how Pakistan stays Pakistan
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentI think the article is very well written. And I believe that the person has a clear understanding of the situation in Pakistan. The stats provided are a clear support to the argument made. There are no reasons I see to conclude or abolish the claims made as that’s for sure the current situation. But I will like to add that politics is a dirty business. And the opposition parties know how to play the trump card. Not to mention the few activists you see the so called moderates of Pakistani society some what includes the mullahs. And there is no segregation between them. To account for the overall strategy in place democracy or dictatorship, the parallel needs to support one extreme than the one that was corrupt from before. You can not trust the snake that has bit you in the past. You can… if you like the effect of the poison. (Very well written article I am really impressed)
Posted by: Umair Niazi | November 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentRachman’s analysis does send shivers down my spine as an unfortunate, middle-class, Westernised Pakistani. The country is truly in a meltdown situation. Musharraf has failed miserably in trying to stem the tide of Islamofascists. Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and the rest of the motley lot are all tainted by scandal, neopotism and corruption but there is little alternative. The deal brokered by US and UK between Musharraf and Benazir could have given this wretched country a gasping chance, but that too is now on the rocks. A failed State? Very much so. The slide of Pakistan into a civil war is a very real prospect and would have terrible consequences for the whole region. Forget democracy, a strong, secular dictatorship is required for the forseeable future if this country is to survive intact.
Posted by: Muhammad | November 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pm | Report this commentThe image that accompanies this “old” thread here tragically tells today’s story.
The media should prosecute the incompetence (could it be deliberate?), self-righteousness and ignorance that are at the head of the US State Department and the broader foreign policy establishment that has delivered the world too many destructive, exploited and opportunistic scenarios.
Comments from Boucher and then Burns left the US exposed. Boucher: “The US didn’t just support Benezir Bhutto; we support all people in Pakistan who want democracy.” He went on to say that he thougth the PPP, with whom he noted they were working, had good leaders. He didn’t mention 19-yo boys who know it best through Heathrow and Dubai airports. He likely had to research Sindhi dynasties this past weekend. If he bothered.
Then we have Rice and her banal remarks and insistence–she seems to have Musharraf by the balls–that elections will continue as planned. Leadership qualities, much less diplomatic sensibilities?
As postings here noted, Pakistan marked a serious split in the US foreign policy apparatus. Rice won over Gates in achieving Bush’s buy in for the US support of Bhutto, who no doubt was determined to go back into the fray. I suspect I would have found Gates’ arguments lacking, and Bush unlikely saw more than another dusty, incestuous country with lots of US logistical, security and “intelligence” resources on its soil.
I read yesterday an account taken from a bio of Ms Rice, the title of which offended me from the getgo, “Twice as good”. In it she is described during a 2005 meeting in Islamabad with PM Shaukat Aziz, who previously was a most accomplished executive at Citibank, with responsibilities for the ME and South Asia. Our interests overlapped on several occasions and I have held him in the greatest respect as he stepped into his very tough jobs in his home country.
Apparently, Shaukat Aziz was too chivalrous–still considered both a virtue and a charm in most of the non-anglophone settings of my life. Ms Rice reportedly, in the meeting, seemed taken aback and behaved like a convent-school girl who thought that men had cooties and intentions. The meeting was without substance, as most with Ms Rice are, apart from her delivery of word that the US was working more closely with India on nuclear. Some story from it, however, took feet and prompted Mr Aziz to dismiss rumours as “trash”.
The depth, quality and characters that define the US Administration and the foreign policy teams of the candidates (Brzezinski should be blogging rather than advising Obama) need to be challenged a bit more rudely. Their EU counterparts as well. Javier Solana will likely agree with me on this.
At least Madeleine Albright discussed topics of interest with her Japanese homologue after lecturing him at a dinner on the evils of smoking for more than 15 minutes.
Posted by: WCM | December 31st, 2007 at 10:06 am | Report this comment