The New York Times reports that the US is likely to continue sending aid to Pakistan, despite Musharraf’s mini-coup in recent days, which not only resulted in the arrest of members of the opposition, but also of human rights activists.
The reason for the ongoing support is that the White House feels that Musharraf continues to be the best hope for US interests with regards to the War on Terrorism. If Musharraf is ousted, the Bush administration fears, it’ll become increasingly easy for Al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and to stage attacks, both against targets in the Middle East and against Western targets.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that, although the US would “have to review the situation with aid,” Bush’s first concern is “to protect America and protect American citizens by continuing to fight against terrorists.” “That means we have to be very cognizant of the counterterrorism operations that we are involved in,” she said. Adding that the US has “to be very cognizant of the fact that some of the assistance that has been going to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission.”
Musharraf and his advisers, meanwhile, appear to be quite confident. There’s little to no doubt in their minds about whether or not the US will continue to support Musharraf’s regime. One aide to the Pakistani president said that the US “would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” which - like it or not - sounds logical.
The situation is incredibly difficult, the US is once again stuck between a rock and a hard place. Holding back support for Pakistan - thus not giving the country billions in aide - may very well result in a weaker Musharraf regime and, if that happens, a take-over by extremists. Extremists and nuclear weapons - since Pakistan is a nuclear power - are one dangerous combination.
On the other hand, although Musharraf is often referred to as an ally in the war against terrorism, the US and other countries have criticized his somewhat apathic approach: Al Qaeda and the Taliban have created a safe haven for themselves in Pakistan and are more often than not left alone by the regime. The US has to push Pakistan - time and again - into acting against the extremists who organize there, only to stage attacks against allied troops in Afghanistan. When Musharraf orders his army to go in, it does so grudgingly, too slowly and its military action is too short lived to truly be effective.
On the other hand, Musharraf is, at least, doing something. If other people take over, it might very well be that nothing will be done and that would create an even less stable Middle East and it would enable organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban to recruit more individuals for their cause.
So, what can be done? In my opinion not much. The only thing the US can hope for is that Musharraf will become a more serious ally in the War on Terrorism and that the crack down will be short lived. Allow Pakistan’s president to stabilize his country somewhat, but after that talk him into loosening his rule and accepting opposition once again.
More at Don Surber, the Huffington Post and Memeorandum.
If you enjoyed this or other posts here at the Gazette, please vote for us as Best European Blog in this year’s Weblog Awards. You can vote once every 24 hours; every vote counts.
One aide to the Pakistani president said that the US “would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” which - like it or not - sounds logical.
ROFL! It doesn’t sound logical at all. Like it or not, “democracy” that has to be “suspended” to allow the wrong people from coming into power is not democracy at all. Like it or not.
The situation is incredibly difficult, the US is once again stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Awwww! Poor United States! It’s not as though the Bush admin’s actions over the last four years have AT ALL contributed to this outcome, lol.
Sorry, but administration placed itself in this position years ago and this is one of the effects of its policies in the area. This event also goes to show the hypocrisy the administration (and other programs/policies by earlier administrations) to use national security to trump idealistic ideas like “democracy” and “the rise of the purple fingers”.
Also, things haven’t been going well in Pakistan for a while and this will only drive the country to civil war with three sides: religious fundamentalists, constitutionalists, and the followers of Musharraf. Way to go Bushies for taking the “eye off the ball” to get stuck in Iraq.
Counterterrorism Blog: http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/11/pakistan_talibanization.php
Long War Journal (so many articles): http://www.longwarjournal.org/
Kathy, can you be more specific? Since you obviously have extensive knowledge of U.S. policy in Pakistan, what particular policies–names and dates would be helpful–have led to the Musharraf crackdown?
By the way, what logical error is being committed when someone says that the U.S. needs stability more than democracy in Pakistan? I follow you that there’s nothing especially “democratic” about Pakistan, or about what we need from it. But where is the logical error, the contradiction? I mean, of course there’s nothing especially democratic about suspending elections, eliminating separated powers, and so forth. BUT NOBODY HAS SAID THERE WAS! So I’m not sure who your triumphant “gotcha” is supposed to be directed toward.
the US and other countries have criticized his somewhat apathic approach:
Sage is correct & Kathy is disingenuous. Pakistan has always been a “Federalist Democracy” with only one REAL arbiter, the Pakistan Army, which for historical and political reasons holds the final say. Just like Turkey and Egypt and several other countries in the region.
I visited there several times and had the opportunity to talk to senior officials who believe the largest threat to the country is division between the Pathan/Baluch western provinces and the Punjab/Sindh eastern ones—the struggle with India is the only external threat that keeps the country united—some of them have told me. That’s why Kashmir will never go away.
India might be called democracy through corruption, Pakistan democracy through coercion.
Watch as the same people who insist that we should just “talk with Iran and Syria” to come to peace in Iraq will now criticize us for supporting “the dictator Musharraf” in Pakistan.
The problems of the world do not come with easy solutions.
The Islamists in Pakistan seem to be trying to use tactics similar to those employed by their counterparts in Algeria. Destroy and kill without restraint in the hope that they come out top from the chaos that they have created.
Unfortunately Musharraf has probably taken the least bad option, which is understandable in a situation where there are no good options.
Democracy is not an absolute. Any group who regards ordinary citizens of their country as targets to be killed cannot be allowed into power, whether they win elections or not.
Kathy, can you be more specific? Since you obviously have extensive knowledge of U.S. policy in Pakistan, what particular policies–names and dates would be helpful–have led to the Musharraf crackdown?
I don’t have knowledge of U.S. policy in Pakistan that is any more extensive than what has been available to anyone else for the past four years. Many factors have led to the current suspension of all legal and human rights in Pakistan, but one significant factor in Musharraf’s increasing unpopularity is his relationship with the United States. His support for Pres. Bush’s war policies in Afghanistan and Iraq — even though to a large extent that support has been on paper only — has angered Pakistanis tremendously and certainly has aided, if not caused, the resurgence of the Taliban and terrorism in general.
That’s one point. The other is that, having chosen to ally itself with a military dictatorship because the head of that military dictatorship swore fealty to us in the so-called “war on terror,” it’s kind of hard for Bush to turn his back on that support and burn his bridges by withdrawing support from Musharraf now. Had he not made that devil’s bargain to begin with, he would not now have to agonize (not that I think he spent much time agonizing) about whether to break it off when the devil pulls out all the stops and jettisons what little shred of democratic process Pakistan had before this happened. The U.S. would not have had to choose between losing a “valuable ally in the war on terror” and supporting a leader who is turning Pakistan into another Burma — thus making our fine words about democracy look as completely hollow as they, in actual fact, always have been, had the U.S. not sacrificed principle for the convenience of the moment four years ago.
I might also add that if the Bush admin is supporting Musharraf’s suspension of all legal, civil, and human rights in Pakistan because the U.S. “needs stability more than democracy” in that country at the moment, that in itself makes a mockery of this admin’s fine words about liberating Iraq and spreading democracy in the Middle East. Not to mention that any future attempts to present ourselves as supporting democracy or wanting to establish democratic regimes in that region will fail miserably, because democracy doesn’t work that way. You can’t just decide that in such and such country at such and such a time, dictatorship serves the U.S. national interest, but at this other country at this other time, democracy is the way to go. What do you think? that democracy and tyranny are like hats of different styles you can try on and discard or wear depending on how the mood and occasion strike your fancy? How stupid do you think the world’s peoples are?
Furthermore, I am absolutely convinced that you already know all this, so you are the one being disingenuous in your questions to me, not I in my comment to Michael’s post.
Musharraf has actually done a fair amount of good for Pakistan, and time will soon tell if this affair is a boneheaded move or another sign of commitment to his country, even if it in results in some temporary (or permanent) bad press.
There is no doubt a need for a Robocop style clean up if democracy is to prosper, because as we’ve seen, army rule clogs Pakistan’s history.
If the US cuts it’s umbilical cord from Pakistan, it will hurt the US far more. The posturing from America is standard protocol to look tough as well as give Musharaff a general hint for the future. Pakistan is generally a friend, but the split personality that fuels terrorism will always irritate the US. It’s just the way it is.
Kathy,
I’d just like to point out to you — as a born citizen of Pakistan (currently living in the US) with several family members happily living in Karachi — that not all legal and human rights have been suspended.
I’m pretty sure my family still has access to food and water, to travel to and from work, to protest in the streets if they wish (you might see some of those protesters — many of whom are women — if you tune into BBC News).
Yes, there is emergency rule where certain rights are being compromised, certain high profile political and human rights activist under house arrest. That is unfair. It is incorrect in my opinion. But it’s a far cry from the suspension of all legal and human rights.
[...] US Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan: Stuck Between Rock and Hard Place [...]
I think anyone who believes that Musharraf is “threatening to turn Pakistan into another Burma” is seriously delinquent in knowledge of the complexity of Pakistani politics. There are no valid comparisons whatever between the Pakistan military who are basically apolitical in any ideological sense, and the Myanmar socialist/PRC stooges who are totalitarian moonbats.
Someone should lay off the Kool-aid and visit the region or at least read the excellent Economist, FT, and other articles on the Paki situation. Or actually visit the country and talk to a wide range of citizens from all four province/states [although I only talked to one Belushi].
I’d just like to point out to you — as a born citizen of Pakistan (currently living in the US) with several family members happily living in Karachi — that not all legal and human rights have been suspended.
With all due respects to your citizenship, I would be less skeptical of your assessment if you were actually living in Pakistan at the moment. If you were, would you be able to post to a blog on the Internet?
When you say “I’m pretty sure that…” in what sense do you mean that? Do you mean it as a rhetorical flourish, or do you mean you know this from personal observation or having directly communicated with your loved ones?
I don’t think anyone has said that Musharraf has denied Pakistanis access to food and water, although I have no doubt it’s difficult to get under these circumstances. But he has arrested over 1,500 people last I heard, and very few of them if any are “terrorists.” They are, as you indicate, lawyers, human rights workers, university professors, writers, etc. This casts doubt, to put it mildly, on Musharraf’s contention that he is “only” trying to prevent Islamists from coming to power. Come on! Who believes that? He is trying to prevent the lost of his OWN power.
You say people can protest in the streets. Without being arrested? Or beaten up? People can protest freely with no adverse consequences?
Kathy,
Considering I’ve had several e-mail communications with my uncle who lives there, I would say with a firm faith that I could freely post on this blog, yes. Sorry to ruin your image of what’s actually happening there.
Also, you said that all human rights are being taken away, I consider access to food and water human rights. Since plenty of people have that, I can say that not all human rights are being taken away even from those who are jailed or under house arrest.
Furthermore, my post is not in defence of Musharraf. It only asks you to recognise that while the situation is dire and not what any Pakistani (or most others) want for the country, it isn’t the picture you paint either.
Also, people are protesting, yes. And they are doing it just as freely as they do in the States. I’m not sure where you live but where I am in NYC, people are arrested during nearly ever protest that takes place. Have you ever heard of Critical Mass: a group of bikers who ride on the last Friday of every month, pushing for transport alternatives in the city. There are numerous arrests. In fact, local blogs always keep counts for comparison and live blog during those Fridays. So, let’s be realistic. Pakistanis are protesting more or less the same way most people protest here. There have been some that have been much worse (ie. instances of tear gases) but those are prominent in recent U.S. History as well.