« Open Link Thread | Main | Deep Thoughts By Alan Dershowitz »
November 07, 2007
There's A New Musharraf In Town
David Ignatius is making a lot of sense on Pakistan. As he says, we really don't understand Pakistan well enough to know what to bet on, much less who, and we can no more take a gamble on an opposition leader than we can prop up Musharraf. There's also the danger -- which America's democracy-promoters don't seem to understand -- that forcefully advocating for the civil leaders we like could very well discredit them. Being seen as a puppet of the Americans is not, in the current global moment, an effective electoral strategy. Indeed, it's one that can both undermine an otherwise decent leader and give a regime the rhetorical justification for further crackdowns. Here, for instance, is how one reformer explains what's happened in Iran:
Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government. It has shut down all independent domestic media and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush administration, for its part, has approved a fund for democracy assistance in Iran. That this fund is, in fact, being largely spent on official US institutions and media affiliated with the US government has made it easy for the Iranian authorities to describe the regime's opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about "the possibility" of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran.
If we flip from Musharraf and begin supporting other candidates, Musharraf will flip on us. If we stick with Musharraf and he's ousted in a revolution, we will be identified as allies of the dictator. This isn't a situation where we must pick the best of two bad options. Rather, it's a situation where we should show some humility, let the Pakistanis make their own decisions, and pledge to deal openly with whomever emerges.
November 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Ezra,
I'm 100% with you on not taking sides in struggles for power, and on the inherent tendency of promoting reformers under hostile regimes. However, we're talking about a country whose collapse (or even increased instability) would certainly cause the deaths of thousands, probably lead to a regional war, and possibly cause the (further) proliferation of nuclear weapons or put them in the hands of even scarier people than Musharraf.
What the U.S. should be doing in this situation is trying to convince Musharraf to negotiate in good faith with the secular and Islamist opposition, offering its good offices or mediation if requested. Of course, the problem with this approach is that our country is run by a group of people whose approach to diplomacy is to play clumsy pseudo-Machiavellian power politics with these conflicts, as if moving the right chess piece at the right time will solve everything.
So, yes, maybe waiting for whoever emerges is our best bet, given the available options. But it's certainly not the active and positive role we could and should be playing.
Posted by: Serx | Nov 7, 2007 10:47:06 AM
i agree also.
it seems that of all of the potential dangers we have created by the occupation in iraq, the instability in pakistan has the potential for being the most dangerous.
....bhutto is also not a popular figure in pakistan and has been associated with much corruption, and that is worrisome, as well.
.....aside from the global political and strategic ramifications, any real increased regional instability can affect india and global economic markets as well.
our foreign policy in that region is causing havoc.
Posted by: jacqueline | Nov 7, 2007 11:11:11 AM
it's a situation where we should show some humility, let the Pakistanis make their own decisions, and pledge to deal openly with whomever emerges.
Man, that would be nice.
But it's a plan that depends on the US showing humility and deference to the wishes of people of another country.
Will that happen? Did this administration learn anything from the Palestinian elections that put Hamas into power and their reactions to that election?
Does this administration ever learn anything from any action it takes?
Now I've depressed myself. I need a drink.
Posted by: NonyNony | Nov 7, 2007 11:17:37 AM
the other day,watching dominos standing in a line, each waiting for their turn to fall, i paraphrased the laurel and hardy quote to myself.
"another fine mess you have gotten us all into..."
Posted by: jacqueline | Nov 7, 2007 11:32:49 AM
I'm not sure I agree. Pakistan is not Iran circa 1979. Obsidian Wings has a good post on this from a couple of days ago:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/11/islamic-extremi.html
Posted by: Hollis | Nov 7, 2007 12:26:39 PM
Bush and Cheney, with all their years of blabbing about weapons of mass destruction have, by backing the dictator Musharraf, now created the very real possibility of placing nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Quaeda.
How about this? We throw our total support behind whichever viable candidate first commits absolutely to giving up Pakistan's nuclear weapons as soon as they are elected.
Posted by: Carl from L.A. | Nov 7, 2007 12:41:35 PM
Ezra, you are right in theory but the fact is that by currently providing Pakistan with a whole lot of military aid, it is doing something one way or another.
It needs to be unequivocal in its support for the release of political and human rights activists. Also, it shouldn't encourage Musharraf to strike a deal with Benazir as it has done in the last few months. For Benazir (who is already disliked by a lot of people) to have any sort of credibility she has to be elected in free and fair elections.
Posted by: shariq | Nov 7, 2007 12:58:19 PM
Ezra, I agree - with the addition of stopping all aid in the interim. There can be no democracy there until all political prisoners are released from prison or exile. And we don't even know for sure who has the power at this moment - it might be that the military is using Musharref as their puppet for all we know.
Meanwhile, where does India stand in all this? We aren't hearing anything from them, when one would think they have the highest stake of any in the current turmoil. Is our MSM deliberately ignoring them, or could it be that perhaps they see all this as no big deal? We just don't know.
One major reason for my opinion is that none of the major players in the region, particularly India, China, or Russia, want to see a powerful Islamic group gain control of Pakistan's nukes. Like us, I believe they all could work with Musharref, Bhutto, or Sharif. All have good reason to resist a Taliban takeover. Sounds like it is a good time for our people to pay attention & engage them for their input.
Posted by: bob in fla | Nov 7, 2007 4:37:08 PM
amen Ezra. We do need to let other countries.. be other countries. They are not an extension of the US nor do our opinions really matter to them in their own internal conflicts.
We should openly show that we have not been backing Musharraf personally, and have not been propping him up for him to maintain power. Rather that we have given him money strictly to enhance our own interests. ..of course this calls for something that this administration is criminally short on, and that is accountability. If he has not (and yes its coming to light that he likely hasnt) been using our money to defeat extremists and particularly al qaida on their territory we need to take our funds and go home. ..thats it.
To this end we also need to make it clear that if the successor to gen M. acts in our interests the same money will flow through them. ..pay for performance, not personality.
We've been playing move the deck chairs on every country we can influence for years now.. and it hasnt done those countries or us almost any good.
Posted by: davidb | Nov 7, 2007 10:29:34 PM
You seem to be confusing Musharraf with the people of Pakistan:
If we flip from Musharraf and begin supporting other candidates, Musharraf will flip on us. If we stick with Musharraf and he's ousted in a revolution, we will be identified as allies of the dictator. This isn't a situation where we must pick the best of two bad options. Rather, it's a situation where we should show some humility, let the Pakistanis make their own decisions, and pledge to deal openly with whomever emerges. This isn't a situation where we must pick the best of two bad options. Rather, it's a situation where we should show some humility, let the Pakistanis make their own decisions, and pledge to deal openly with whomever emerges.
This suggests first, that the US isn't already actively supporting a dog in the Pakistani race and second, that "the Pakistanis" as a people will be in a position to make any sort of a decision. First, Musharraf is already propped up by financial and military aid from the US, and second, when he indefinitely postponed elections, he squashed any possibility the Pakistanis had of making their own decisions.
Perhaps the US shouldn't explicitly support the opposition, but it should support the process of democracy, even if that just means making elections a condition for continued US military and financial aid.
Posted by: sean | Nov 8, 2007 11:11:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
