 |
Pakistan Crackdown Justified by American Rhetoric |
 |
In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf has imposed emergency rule. His justification? Language borrowed from America’s disastrous “war on terror.”
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s constitution and deployed troops in the capital Saturday, declaring that rising Islamic extremism had forced him to take emergency measures.
His real motive, many suspect, was to forestall the possibility that Pakistan’s Supreme Court would soon rule that Musharraf was ineligible to serve as president. When martial law descended, Musharraf acted swiftly to shut down the Court:
As the state of emergency was imposed, the chief justice was replaced and the Supreme Court surrounded by troops.
The American reaction?
Weak:
“This action is very disappointing. President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges.”
And counter-productive:
The U.S. said it was disappointed and called for Musharraf to restore democracy. However, the Pentagon said the emergency declaration does not affect U.S. military support for Pakistan and its efforts in the war on terrorism.
Such reactions are inadequate. The situation in Pakistan is poised to explode. There is a real possibility that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who has already survived one assassination attempt during her brief return to Pakistan and immediately cut short her trip to Dubai to fly back to Pakistan today, will be killed. The international community, which has been observing Pakistan’s democratic processes with anxiety and anticipation, will be more than disappointed by the imposition of blatant authoritarian measures: it will be frightened. India will be frightened. Afghanistan could be further destabilized. Militants within Pakistan could be further radicalized, and the Agonist wonders whether the lower ranks in the Pakistani army might revolt. Major outbreaks of violence in Pakistan could threaten the stability of the entire region.
Amidst all this, Musharraf uses language borrowed from the “war on terror” to legitimate his actions. Combating extremism is certainly important. But as experts from the International Crisis Group were pointing out as early as 2004, Musharraf has been squandering opportunities to combat extremism for quite some time now.
The government has done very little to implement tougher controls on financing of either madrasas or extremist groups despite obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1373. It has failed to pass the necessary laws, even removing the issue of terrorism funding from draft regulations on money laundering on the misleading claim that it was already covered under an earlier law on terrorism.
Pakistan’s laws on terrorism and extremist groups remain muddled and opaque. While the government claims to be tackling terrorism, it has taken almost no steps towards restricting the extremism that permeates parts of the society. Even al Qaeda was not officially banned until March 2003.
Musharraf’s failure owes less to the difficulty of implementing reforms than to the military government’s own unwillingness. Indeed, he is following the pattern of the country’s previous military rulers in co-opting religious extremists to support his government’s agenda and to neutralise his secular political opposition. Far from combating extremism, the military government has promoted it through its electoral policies and its failure to implement effective reform. Whatever measures have so far been taken against extremism have been largely cosmetic, to ease international pressure.
It seems Musharraf has played us for fools. Worse yet, we have pledged our continued support. If the situation in Pakistan unravels further, many people in Pakistan and around the world will connect America’s name with Musharraf’s - in other words, with antidemocratic forces.
The chickens are coming home to roost. In this theater, as in many others, the disastrous policies associated with the war on terror have not only produced chaos and violence at the local level, but have fundamentally undermined America’s credibility on the world stage.
Well. I would say that the words are not borrowed by the US war on Terror but this is what the ground reality is here in Pakistan. I live right next to the capital and there have been suicide bomb blasts within a couple of kilometers of my home a few times in the last few months. This was not the case before. I do not take that as a failure of the government. Its the rise of the extremist elements that are condemned by 90% of the Pakistani population.
More than 160 people are killed in about 15 suicide attacks after the siege and storming by security forces of Islamabad’s of Red Mosque. This is what we have got for fighting against terrorism not for not doing anything about it. The Pakistan Army is engaged with militants (responsible for the suicide attacks) in at least 4 districts of the country. No the government was not sleeping its way through the partnership with the US.
The Chief Justice of the country was fired by the President back in March. A case in the Courts ensued and he was re-enstated by the court ruling. That was accepted whole heartedly by the government. After that the chief Justice and other judges started targeting the government on literally everything. Well.. Fair enough. But why just the government. There are other things also going wrong in the country. The court started taking Suo Moto notice of administrative issues and decisions. For one example, they freed some 60 odd people that the government had arrested after the bloody Red Mosque Operation in the capital. These people then took control of the Mosque again and re-started supporting (and very loudly supporting) terrorists and Suicide bombers.
News Report
ISLAMABAD, Oct 25: The Naib Imam of Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) has declared that security personnel killed in an explosion in the Swat valley on Thursday suffered the death of ‘infidels’.
Addressing a news conference in the camp office of Rawalpindi-Islamabad Press Club, Amir Siddiqui, who was recently appointed to the job by the government on the orders of the Supreme Court, also announced support for militant Swat cleric Maulana Fazlullah.
He said Fazlullah had supported late Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who was killed in the military operation on Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa in July.
Yes.. One can argue that the emergency was put in to avoid any unfavorable decision by the Supreme Court. But how many would agree with a ruling by the same court to put back in place people responsible for taking hostages, running a parallel government and supporting suicide attacks and terrorism. Its far bigger then just the decision on the Presidents chair. Its about a country on the verge of falling into the hands of terrorist elements. Would anyone recommend further de-stabling the government at this point?? I will not.
Thats just what a Pakistani who lives in the middle of the whole mayhem feels.
Ehsan
Ehsan,
You make some good points. Nobody wants to see the rise of extremism in Pakistan. But given that extremism has been a problem for years - or, as you say, in an intensified form for the last few months - the timing of Musharraf’s state of emergency seems suspicious. I am not alone in my suspicions, either; most of the international press has wondered aloud whether the crackdown was to prevent an unfavorable Supreme Court decision. Does the Court have problems? I can very well believe it does, and the story you cite about the Court’s decisions in the past is troubling. Yet that does not justify Musharraf’s decision to dismantle it by force. These are moves that I feel undermine democracy and stability, because they make Musharraf’s rule seem thoroughly antidemocratic. There would have been other ways to deal with the Court.
Let me put it this way: fighting and preventing terrorism is important. But the ‘war on terror’ as an ideology and a set of policies has been disastrous for the US. And from what I’m seeing out of Pakistan - and from what you’re saying - it doesn’t seem that it’s benefited Pakistan either. And it seems that Musharraf is using language borrowed from the war on terror to legitimate actions that go way beyond the scope of fighting terrorism.
Combatting terror does not mean losing democracy. That’s a false choice. I mean, how does imprisoning the Supreme Court help fight the war on terror anyway?
More important to me, however, is the US response to this mess. We can’t continue to support Musharraf as he takes dictorial power over the country. It simply reeks of the kind of games we played during the cold war, supporting capitalist dictators to prevent the spread of communism. It wasn’t a strategy that worked then and it won’t work now.
I agree with what you are saying and I am not completely ruling out the possibility that he did it to get away with an unfavorable court ruling. All I am saying is that there is a wider view that should be taken of the whole situation. Yes, the terror threat and suicide attacks have been there for a few months but lately, the violence has spread to a few districts, notably Swat Valley, and it seems to be worsening exponentially. I again say that I agree that the timing does make the motive suspicious.
I would like to make a few more points here.
1- You talk about Benazir Bhutto. The west seems to think that she is the only hope left for Pakistan and democracy here (at least the US Government does). She has been the Prime Minister two times. What were her achievements? Wikepedia.com’s article on Benazir says little good. It refers to charges of corruption in Poland, France, Middle East, Switzerland.
She had a very clear threat from the terrorists regarding suicide attacks on her life. Why did she choose to risk lives of hundreds if not thousands by making her way inch by inch to her house from the airport? She could have been rushed by an escort to her house and not have given the suicide bombers a sitting duck to shoot. Yes she is popular and yes her supporters would have been disappointed but not as much as they were by the suicide attack. 150 dead. among them small children and women also.
2. The media was given total freedom by the present government which led to mushrooming of private channels. They reported and commented with total freedom. Freedom but no responsibility or ethics. Can you imagine turning on CNN to see a man in a pool of blood dying and crying for help while being filmed by a journalist not humane enough to help him? Seeing severed heads of suspected suicide bombers. Human flesh hanging from a tree bark 20 feet up. Severed hands and other body parts all over the road. What would the families of the killed feel seeing all this repeatedly on TV. (You can find a lot of these clips hosted on Youtube and the like). You should have seen how the issue of the Red Mosque was reported and mishandled by the media.
At the cost of freedom of the press I think the presidential order today for Media was bound to come.
I just want to make a point that people in the west have to do a thorough research of what Pakistan is like, what is happening here, what we live through each day, what good there is and what good has been done. This is a time when we all, here in Pakistan, have to unite and forget our differences to strive for a peaceful Pakistan. Not a time to throw mud at each other which was a norm on TV, the streets and in the houses of the government.
Thank you
Ehsan
When the Supreme Court is after the government and hindering administrative decisions like it did on the Red Mosque issue,(see below) it does help to fight terrorism. The Supreme Courts job is to help better the society, not to take revenge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6293914.stm
I think you make some great points, Ehsan. As E-Lho has pointed out in her Pakistan series, it really seems like a battle between two evils, a democratic but corrupt establishment on one side and a military dictator on the other.
I’m curious what you think, Ehsan. Does the rumoured power sharing agreement between Bhutto and Musharraf give you hope of the kind of unity and peace you say is necessary right now? Do you feel that deal will ever come to pass? Or is there another option we in the West just don’t know about yet?
I myself have wondered what Bhutto’s appeal is. But I didn’t bring her up because I think she is a potential savior for Pakistani democracy. Rather, I think that her death would destabilize the situation further and provoke international outcry. I think your point actually reinforces mine - if the West believes she is the only hope left for democracy and then she gets killed, that can only affect the situation (and international opinion) negatively.
As I said, everyone has to stop throwing mud at each other. Right now it only seems that she is here to take advantage of the situation. She is bad mouthing the government, the government is bad mouthing her. Yet they have a deal. Everyone is after each other for what he or she did in his or her tenures. If you ask the general opinion amongst the moderates (which is the overwhelming majority here), it is pro Musharraf for the good his rule has brought over the last 7 odd years (I am not talking about the Emergency that he declared). Yes, the daily commodities are expensive still but I guess that takes a long time to go down once the economy starts to settle. There are more construction projects, more jobs, more opportunities, the stock market is at its best (it was the most growing market in the world for a couple of years), we were getting foreign investments, are loans were decreasing. We were on our way to prosperity..
I guess from my view, my hope is that the mud does stop flying, as you hope it will. It seems that a unified Bhutto/Musharraf government would give Pakistan a decent shot at stability and prosperity. However, I hope Musharraf reins in his dictatorial tendencies, as it seems he’s hurting his cause and perhaps dissilussioning his base.
Interesting:
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday the U.S. will review its aid to Pakistan after the country’s military ruler suspended the constitution.”
But: “The review cited by Rice would look in part at whether some current aid cannot continue because of U.S. legal restrictions that set conditions for governments to receive money. That probably would cover only a small amount of the total aid, which now runs to about $150 million each month.”
First, I am curious what you might make of this, Ish (and others): I heard an interviewee on NPR this morning with a guy from Pakistan who argued people in Pakistan have lost their democracy in an effort to preserve American democracy. That is, Pakistan’s role in America’s “war on terror” is to blame for Pakistan losing its democracy. I see a number of ways in which such an argument can be supported or negated, so I thought I’d appeal to others.
Second, the timing of emergency rule is too perfect for it to be attributed to the rise of extremism. Yes, there has been an increase in extremism and attacks by extremists in Pakistan, but it seems the timing in relation to elections, and the dismissal of parliament (when was to occur Nov. 5th ish…I can’t recall the precise date), and Bhutto going back to Dubai and the Supreme Court in deliberations, etc. that the declaration of Emergency Rule is the result of a scared military ruler worried about keepinghis power. Say what he might about extremism, looking at everything else going on at the same (in Pakistan, and abroad–see below) that emergency rule was declared for the sole purpose of keeping Musharraf in power.
Third, since Pakistan is so reliant upon and tied to military aid from the U.S., I wonder whether timing of Musharraf’s decision wasn’t also tied to recent developments in U.S. foreign policy. In particular, I have in mind agreements made by Secretary Rice in Turkey as well as on-going negotiations in the Middle East. Recall in the past, that when Musharraf seemed poised to declare emergency rule, Secretary Rice and others stepped in a dissuaded him from such a declaration. Now that U.S. attention has migrated to another series of problems, perhaps Pakistan is acting out for the sake of gaining international attention? (This idea is more speculation than anything else, but perhaps others would like to consider emergency rule within the broader context of U.S. foreign policy and current affairs as well?)
Needless to say, I am disappointed.
The comments from Pakistani officials today in the Times say a lot:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05diplo.html?th&emc=th)