[Skywalker]

You see a lot of news about Pakistan these days in the US. Most of it is crazy making. This thread was triggered by a discussion in cerveza_fiesta's biggest shithead thread and beware - it is going to be a rant.

Disclaimer: I am from India, and while you might think that automatically qualifies me as a Pakistan hating rabble rouser (we are like a mini Israel-Palestine... or Man U and Arsenal), let me say at the outset that I am not.

The aim of this post is to address some gross misunderstandings regarding the situation and Musharraf that I see here in the west.

Context

This started on CF's thread because someone named Musharraf as a contendor for the title, and Amphibian came back saying:

amphibian said:

I disagree. Musharraf is in a bad, bad, bad position entirely because he's stuck between some big forces: the United States and Islamofascism. The U.S. has been giving him billions for years now and they want more demonstrable results yesterday; the Islamofascists have been building, through intimidation, brainwashing and foreign funding, something on the order of an imperio in imperium (country within a country) that's directly threatening the future of Pakistan as a nation. He's gotta walk a fine balance between the two, while advancing his people into modernity.

Musharraf absolutely has to leave the army; if he stays, he'll be killed. He is probably the sole Pakistani leader who will do things for Pakistan that will be good for its people and the world as a whole. He's also peaceful towards India, which is a great thing for Kashmir and both nations.

I'd say that most of Pakistan dislikes Bhutto for the insanely corrupt governments she ran before, is ambivalent at best about Nawaz Sharif and doesn't mind Musharraf too much. The revolts you see in the streets are mostly Bhutto supporters, who want a return to the old system and the constant conflicts with India. Out past the city limits, the people ain't revolting. Bhutto and Sharif are being presented by the media as contenders because nobody wants to see the country slide back into non-secular rule and because they'll likely cave to the intense pressure to give up Al Qaeda cells and leaders. But once they do, poof goes the money and what's Pakistan left with, but dwindling finances and a war with India?

Begin Rant

My heart breaks every time I think of Pakistan. To think of India and Pakistan side by side is a study in contrasts.

In her 60 years India has remained a very diverse democracy - with pockets of insurgency, communalism, a spell of emergency in the 70s, insurgencies in some parts, the unresolved issue of kashmir etc. no doubt - still a functioning and healthy democracy. In the past decade and a half India has also been a rising economic starlet, with higher standards of living and GDP. Yes there are problems, but India is rather well off.

Pakistan by contrast has a history marred by the rule of one iron fist after another. In 60 years of existence, Pakistan has been under military rule for almost 33 years! Musharraf is only the latest in very long line of dictators from the omnipotent and omnipresent Pakistan Army.

To quote wikipedia:

Quote

General Ayub Khan was the president from 1958 to 1969, and General Yahya Khan from 1969 to 1971 (snip). Civilian, yet autocratic, rule continued from 1972 to 1977 under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, but he was deposed by General Zia-Ul-Haq. General Zia was killed in a plane crash in 1988, after which Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was elected as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. (snip). Her government was followed by that of Nawaz Sharif, and the two leaders alternated until the military coup by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999. Since the resignation of President Rafiq Tarar in 2001, Musharraf has been the President of Pakistan.

Musharraf, when he first came to power, did so on the back of the Kargil War misadventure - the incursion into disputed/ Indian territory was his brainchild, with the PM Nawaz Sharif in the dark until the start of hostilities with India. Musharraf was a hawk, whose adventurism destabilized Sharif's power base.

When he deposed and exiled Sharif in the aftermath of Kargil, under great international pressure (and to set up his own image as a dove), Musharraf undertook peace talks with India. However, over years of talking to each other the talks finally fell apart. He wasn't all that popular with the West at the time since his moves to 'true democracy' were mostly criticized as a sham and/ or inadequate.

September 11 changed everything. The US entered Afghanistan and then Iraq, and Pakistan was now the #1 ally in the region. The US tolerated Musharraf because of tactical (if not strategic) imperatives - to the extent that when Musharraf found himself powerless in the borderlands (Pakistan's Pashtun tribal areas) where Al Qaeda and the Taliban got a second wind, the US turned a blind eye. That, and the Iraq War turned the situation in Afghanistan from improving to worsening.

While Musharraf is seen in the west (with reservations) as a well meaning person walking a tightrope between fundamentalism and corruption, who wants to restore democracy and resurrect Pakistan's fortunes, the truth makes for a more cynical picture.

The one thing he is good at is clinging to power. He pulls wool over everyone's eyes by paying lip service to democracy and progress, while the Army, one of the largest economic entities in Pakistan continues its pursuit of vested interests.

In international politics, he has three tricks up that he plays exceedingly well - one is the hint of the threat that is the Pakistani nuclear arsenal falling in the wrong hands, which the west trusts Musharraf to safekeep. The second is the undeniable tactical and strategic ball-grip he has on the US in the region. The third is his use of India as, alternately, the boogeyman or as the target of half-hearted peace-making gestures.

I don't think this guy has done anything spectacular for Pakistan or for the region at large... I agree that Sharif and Bhutto don't present very attractive options because they're as corrupt and with as many if not more vested interests.

And that is precisely what is so sad! As a concerned south-asian, I see Pakistan in a political cul de sac. It would be so much better if they were a chaotic but working democracy...

Sigh... anyway. I guess if there was a point to this post it was that Musharraf isn't as reliable or clean as some in the west think he is.

[cerveza_fiesta]

neato...thanks. Like I said in my post at the Inn, news media is all spin, and american/canadian media does it just as bad as everybody else.

[amphibian]

General Zia-ul-Haq is pretty much the one man we have to thank for the majority of Islamic terrorists today. His stance against the Soviets and later adoption of the Islamic movement (likely to stay in power) pretty much kick-started the whole jihad-beyond-Occupied-Afghanistan phenomenon.

Can Pakistan be a democracy any time soon? Any legitimate elections now would likely result in ultra-conservative Islamic rulers again, which would be bad for the country and bad for the region and world.

It's terrible to say, but nukes are a key to getting into the important economic agreements. If you've got them, the rest of the world will let you eat at the right tables.

Sky Walker, you're Indian, not Kashmiri? Nepal representin' here - specifically Sindhuli.

[Skywalker]

@amphibian - yes, I am from India, from the city of Aurangabad in the state of Maharashtra specifically if you know it (but I doubt that ).

Continue Rant

Will Pakistan be a democracy soon? Maybe... but realistically the problems they face aren't going to be easily solved the day after they hold 'free and fair elections'. Whatever the Bush doctrine may be, that just isn't a cure-all.

The problems Pakistan faces are mostly because of these factors (far as I can tell):

1. Economic - the economy is the absolute pits, given the levels of political unrest, ethnic tensions, and the lack of political will.

1A. Defense spending doesn't help this either - the Army uses its power to keep itself 'well-fed'. Pakistan hiked its defense expenditure by 27% this year in response to a 10% hike in India's defense spend. Most of the money the US lent Pakistan for fighting terror was spent on anti-India weaponry. Not only does this not serve the War of Terror, it deepens Pakistan's army-dug economic hole! More on this here Pakistan declares that it spends about 3% of its GDP on defense - but the Army hasn't actually provided any accounts for the past 60 years!

2. Ethnic - the country is coming apart at its seams - the more affluent cities are disconnected from the poorer hinterland and border areas (in this 'income gap' the situation is similar to India) and communal violence is on the up. The influence of the Taliban is (I think) a lesser factor than the simple disintegration of Pakistan's national integrity along ethnic fault lines.

3. Political - the lack of options, and the endemic hostility to the democratic process from decades of rule by fiat and corruption make things very bad.

3A. Free media is still a dream for Pakistan. Although some agencies have been enterprising in fair reporting in the last five years or so, they have a long way to go. I was listening to a C-SPAN re-cast of PTV News (the state run network from Pakistan) the other day, and it sounded like Musharraf's PR guy wrote the news!

And finally (has to be said), all of this is exacerbated by the fact that the US (the only 'cop' country that can really dictate anything to Pakistan's leadership) is looking the other way because it has so many vested interests.

Saving the population of Iraq and Afghanistan by giving them a democracy is somehow more important to the Bush Administration than doing the same for the people in Pakistan. Its shameful, the double standard.

[Dolorous Menhir]

It's a mess. Important to remember that, although they observed the formalities of disapproval, the rest of the world was relieved when Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government in 1999.

That says a lot about how worthless Sharif was as PM, and it seems that Bhutto was little better. Though Bhutto is clearly the more desirable leader from a Western point of view, being a secular liberal rather than a mild religious conservative (Sharif).

Whenever you read news stories on Pakistan they always mention that hardcore Islamist parties have never won more than 11% of the vote in a general election, so there isn't much danger of an elected theocratic government. I don't know if that refers to the pre-Musharraf (and presumably fair and free) elections, rather than the rigged ones held under his military dictatorship.

I didn't know much about Zia Ul-Haq until I read amphibian's post, but I have read about Musharraf's two-faced Islamic terror strategy. He quietly supports and stokes up the Islamist threat from afar, while claiming to the rest of the world that he is the only one that can head of the growing threat of Islamic extremism in the country.

In the current climate, it is a strategy that has worked extremely well for him. Not so good for everyone else though.

Niggle - It's become something of an automatic response for me to discount an argument that includes "9/11 changed everything". Don't take this the wrong way, but that's rarely the mark of a well-argued position. And this thread is certainly better than that.

[Skywalker]

Dolorous Menhir;229442 said:

(snip) I have read about Musharraf's two-faced Islamic terror strategy. He quietly supports and stokes up the Islamist threat from afar, while claiming to the rest of the world that he is the only one that can head of the growing threat of Islamic extremism in the country.

In the current climate, it is a strategy that has worked extremely well for him. Not so good for everyone else though.

Actually the two-faced Islamic terror strategy predates Musharraf. It originated (as Amphibian pointed out) in Zia's time, when the Soviet threat in Afghanistan was the prime concern. At the time even the US provided arms and support to the fundamentalist Islamic movements that were the precursors of the Taliban.

Sometime in the 1980s, the Inter Services Intelligence agency within Pakistan (sort of the MI5 + 6 equivalent) saw value in stoking the militant Islamic outfits operating in Indian Kashmir and gave them arms, training, and support. These "freedom fighters" (to Pakistan)/ "terrorists" (to India) formed deep links with the Army and Intelligence services of Pakistan.

Dolorous Menhir;229442 said:

Niggle - It's become something of an automatic response for me to discount an argument that includes "9/11 changed everything". Don't take this the wrong way, but that's rarely the mark of a well-argued position. And this thread is certainly better than that.

Your niggle is justified, but dramatic writing apart, "September 11 changed everything" is literally true when it comes to Pakistan's overt and covert stand on Islamic fundamentalism.

The Pakistan Army, between 1987 all the way down to the Kargil war of the late 90s was overtly supportive of these outfits. Some of the more notorious of these are Lashkar-E-Toiba/ Tayyaba (LET), Hizbul Mujahideen and the Jaish-E-Mohammed (JEM). Look it up on Wikipedia and you will see mentions of linkages to the command structures of Al Qaeda etc.

These jerks (among other things) have such feathers in their cap as the attack on the seat of the Indian legislature (Parliament House), which nearly caused another war, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed over 200 people etc.

Us Indians (and others in South Asia) watched with amusement when in the aftermath of 9/11 and the attack on the Taliban, Musharraf started to denounce the same outfits who he had been praising as freedom fighters until recently. His volte-face was complete, and abrupt.

The Islamic fundamentalists that the Pakistan army claims to be fighting in the hinterland are actually products of the fire they once stoked diligently, either turning a blind eye or supporting actively because it suited the anti-India agenda.

That fire has suddenly flared out against them since they deemed their former friends unwelcome guests. The rage of the "Islamo-fascists" in Pakistan isn't directed towards setting up a new world order or some such. It stems primarily from the need to avenge what they see as betrayal from the Army and Intelligence services of Pakistan.

EDIT: To correct spelling mistakes and suchlike

EDIT 2: This is getting a bit long, but found a relevant supporting quote on the ever reliable Wikipedia:

Quote

In 1988, Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq initiated Operation Tupac, which was designation of a three part action plan for the liberation of Kashmir, initiated after the failure of Operation Gibraltar. The name of the operation came from Túpac Amaru II, the 18th century prince who led the war of liberation in Peru against Spanish rule. By May 1996, at least six major militant organizations, and several smaller ones, operated in Kashmir. Their forces are variously estimated at between 5,000 and 10,000 armed men and were mostly of Pakistani Punjabis and Pashtuns. They were roughly divided between those who support independence and those who support accession to Pakistan. The ISI is believed to have played a key role in masterminding the Kargil War.

During 1998-1999, the ISI Director General was sidelined due to his relationship with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; General Muhammad Aziz Khan was in operational control and directly answerable only to General Pervez Musharraf. During this time, the ISI was contributing greatly to the Taliban.

After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan joined the American led Global War on Terror and turned against the Taliban. Some men in the ISI whose loyalty was suspect were removed and currently, the ISI have been heavily engaged in counterterrorism against both Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants as well as tribal/sectarian terrorists in Pakistan.

[amphibian]

Just read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about Musharraf getting support from MQM, the secular party that controls Karachi, Pakistan's biggest city.

Basically it says that Musharraf was the only President in the last couple decades who actually let people speak their minds, allow opposition parties to develop, and hold back the Islamic fundamentalists. MQM apparently is a thug group that all of a sudden went straight, or mostly straight, and now enjoys widespread support from the people of Karachi. Both Bhutto and Sharif cracked down hard on MQM and the group does not want either to return to power.

[D Man]

But musharraf went on the daily show!

pakistan must be a nice, cool and groovy country!

[McLovin]

I always thought Musharraf was absolutely brilliant in doing that show. Amazing PR savvy, that guy.

[Skywalker]

amphibian;232210 said:

MQM apparently is a thug group that all of a sudden went straight, or mostly straight, and now enjoys widespread support from the people of Karachi. Both Bhutto and Sharif cracked down hard on MQM and the group does not want either to return to power.

Some contextual factoids: MQM stands for the "Muttahida Qaumi Movement " (United Social Movement) which was changed from the original "Muhajir Qaumi Movement" (Muhajir Classes' Movement) the Muhajir being folks who originally lived in what is now Indian territory.

At the time of the partition of India and Pakistan into separate states in 1947, Muslims living in what would become India were given the option of moving to what would become Pakistan. Those that moved were labeled 'mohazir' and claim to have been treated as second class citizens in Pakistan.

The MQM was a reaction to percieved social injustices and stood up to the governments of both Bhutto and Sharif in their time. Karachi is their stronghold because most of the immigrants from India settled in that city.

That exposition out of the way, I have to say the leader of the MQM (Altaf Hussain) is really a lackey of Musharraf these days, since no love is lost between him and Bhutto/ Sharif.

sky_walker - trying to set up his own non-Oreilly, no spin zone

[Coco with marshmallows]

well, given today's assassination of Benazir Bhutto, i think it's safe to say that the shit is hitting the fan.

Now, while there is of course a lot of reactionary violence at present (essentially spontaneous rioting, which will most likely die down in a few days as it is spontaneous),
my question for those of you better informed than me is:
what do you believe the long-term implications of this event are?

my first thoughts would be that Musharraf will probably use the renewed violence as a cause for declaring martial law, but beyond that, I'm not really sure. So, thoughts?

[amphibian]

Cocoreturns;237396 said:

well, given today's assassination of Benazir Bhutto, i think it's safe to say that the shit is hitting the fan.

Now, while there is of course a lot of reactionary violence at present (essentially spontaneous rioting, which will most likely die down in a few days as it is spontaneous),
my question for those of you better informed than me is:
what do you believe the long-term implications of this event are?

my first thoughts would be that Musharraf will probably use the renewed violence as a cause for declaring martial law, but beyond that, I'm not really sure. So, thoughts?

Bhutto was basically the U.S.'s horse in this race. I don't know if she was ever really all that popular in today's Pakistan. I flipped onto the BBC (am in the U.S.) for a moment to watch some coverage and the best they could come up with was a two minute interview with her cousin. Who looked like an idiot too. Either this is a case of the reporters not being brave/obsessed-with-the-story enough to get out into the streets to interview someone or they genuinely couldn't find anyone not related to her that was worth interviewing.

Now we've got a run-off between the Saudis (Sharif) and Musharraf. I think whoever India tips to more will win a non-delayed election - probably Musharraf.

[Gothos]

better Musharraf than the damned Saudis, and I don't think there's anyone in the world disagreeing with that, except for maybe Saudis ;-)

[caladanbrood]

Sharif is allegedly boycotting the election, or at least that's what they were saying yesterday. In which case Musharraf will basically be the only option... which will of course ruin any credibility it might have had in the first place. Not looking good.

[Krupee]

Gothos;237480 said:

better Musharraf than the damned Saudis, and I don't think there's anyone in the world disagreeing with that, except for maybe the damned Saudis ;-)

corrected.

[amphibian]

caladanbrood;237482 said:

Sharif is allegedly boycotting the election, or at least that's what they were saying yesterday. In which case Musharraf will basically be the only option... which will of course ruin any credibility it might have had in the first place. Not looking good.

Boycotting an election you'll likely lose by a landslide is an empty tactic.

[Skywalker]

amphibian;237425 said:

Bhutto was basically the U.S.'s horse in this race. I don't know if she was ever really all that popular in today's Pakistan. I flipped onto the BBC (am in the U.S.) for a moment to watch some coverage and the best they could come up with was a two minute interview with her cousin. Who looked like an idiot too. Either this is a case of the reporters not being brave/obsessed-with-the-story enough to get out into the streets to interview someone or they genuinely couldn't find anyone not related to her that was worth interviewing.

Now we've got a run-off between the Saudis (Sharif) and Musharraf. I think whoever India tips to more will win a non-delayed election - probably Musharraf.

I think that is an oversimplification. Sharif isn't even contesting these elections - he's boycotting them. Also, the Saudis made the deal to keep him alive/ offer him a place to be exiled to... they are otherwise on excellent terms with Musharraf who visits them often.

Bhutto was quite popular in some parts of Pakistan, and will now be more so. An excellent article on this appeared on Salon.com - it made me laugh ruefully.

On an aside, I'd point you to Robert Baer's article in Time magazine that makes some excellent points.

India has made it a point to be strictly "hands-off" throughout this crisis... the Indian government are too worried about the instability that will result from a Musharraf ouster - but at the same time don't like/ trust Musharraf.

And that is really the problem for the average rational Pakistani - there are no good choices.

I honestly think Pakistan is going to come to the brink of extinction because of this - unless the US intervenes once again to save Musharraf. You have to remember that the nationalism in Pakistan is increasingly strained. As Baer says in his article:

Quote

The real problem in Pakistan undermining democracy is that it is a deeply divided, artificial country, created by the British for their expediency rather than for the Pakistanis. Independent Pakistan has always been dominated by a strong military. And democracy will only be nurtured when the wars on its border come to an end, whether in Afghanistan or Kashmir, and the need for the military to meddle in politics is removed. And never before.

Heart-breaking, really

[Anomander Rake]

The west really needs to stop trying to force Pakistan to move back towards democracy at a faster pace than Pakistan is ready for. It is the pressure on Pakistan from the west, that has enabled former corrupt politicians to return, causing internal turmoil, and hence forcing Musharraf to concentrate on the political squabbling etc rather than allowing him to continue to sort out the security situation etc.

Since the pressure for Democracy has been pushed, its has only caused instability.

The west should say basically to Musharraf, you have so many years to do what you want, and sort out the security situation, with no pressure from us to start the democratic process. Then only after these many years, we expect a timeline to be put up and the election process to start that exlcudes corrupt politicians.

This will allow Musharraf to do what needs doing, without his mind being focussed in squabbling with politicians etc.

Having the military ruling or politicians, makes no difference to the majority of Pakistanis, except that your more likely to have better security with a military ruling who isn't pretending to do elections etc.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Got to disagree with everything in that post. I may have no special insight on this topic, but everything I've learned from the media suggests that what you propose is totally the wrong way round.

Musharraf was a supporter of the Taliban before 9/11. The only reason he makes such a big deal about his fighting the "War on Terror" is because that's the reason the West supports him over the alternatives. If he ditched his "anti-militant" rhetoric, which does not bear an exact relation to his actions, he would cease to be viewed as an indispensable ally whose rough edges have to be allowed for, and become just another unseemly dictator.

(Useful historical parallel: Everyone was fine and dandy with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, as long as he was viewed as a necessary ally against revolutionary Iran.)

If you removed the support of the West as a factor in his motives, I don't think he would be anywhere near as serious an opponent of the militants.

And the idea that Pakistanis don't want democracy? That's totally unsupported. To further suggest that it is the drive for democracy that is causing the instability in the first place is ludicrous. Pakistan was a democracy until 1999, when your favourite dictator Musharraf took power. It may not be a country with an entrenched democratic history, but it does have that background and viable (if not flawless) democratic figures like Sharif and Bhutto (no longer) as alternatives to the current military dictatorship.

edit: I've given you a negative rep for that post, because it is just wrong.

[Skywalker]

Anomander Rake;237599 said:

The west should say basically to Musharraf, you have so many years to do what you want, and sort out the security situation, with no pressure from us to start the democratic process. Then only after these many years, we expect a timeline to be put up and the election process to start that exlcudes corrupt politicians.

This will allow Musharraf to do what needs doing, without his mind being focussed in squabbling with politicians etc.

Having the military ruling or politicians, makes no difference to the majority of Pakistanis, except that your more likely to have better security with a military ruling who isn't pretending to do elections etc.

I'd have to say I disagree...

Musharraf is so wildly unpopular in Pakistan right now, there is no way he can stay in power and do what the West needs him to do. He himself doesn't "need to sort out the security situation". Past history indicates that this guy is perfectly content with maintaining status quo so long as he gets to sit on top of things, and in power. He does little more than pay lip service to the West, and to his own people.

I'd recommend you watch a documentary aired on CNN called "Pakistan: Terror Central" if you can. A transcript is available here: http://transcripts.c...2/27/se.01.html

It shows the two-faced reality that is Musharraf.