Pakistan: Democracy Strikes Again!

Here, apparently, is the answer to my Musharraf question. Pervez Musharraf, "President" of Pakistan, who took power in a coup and has never faced a real election will be up for a vote in 2007. Musharraf is broadly unpopular, and appears to be throwing in his lot with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, a major Islamic party, in a bid to have a realistic shot at reelection. This is why he essentially signed a peace treaty with the Taliban (who JUI helped create). Likely it is also why he brought out the stone age story, to explain that his cooperation with the Americans was coerced. He doesn't have to worry about undercutting support for anti-Taliban action, because he has already bailed on it himself.

The truly surreal part of this story is the lack of reaction from the US. Pakistan announces a truce with the Taliban and says they won't bother Osama Bin Laden if he doesn't bother them (and according to the Telegraph one of the key negotiators for the truce was none other than the infamous Mullah Omar). What does the White House say? That Musharraf and Bush are "on the hunt together". Only slightly less surreal was having a meeting between two heads of state where one, when asked about a high profile diplomatic tiff between the two nations, responded to the questions by stating that his book deal prohibited him from answering. That has to be a first. On the topic of the truce Bush says that he looked into Musharraf's eyes (I am serious!) when Musharraf told him he didn't cave to the Taliban and was convinced. No comment on Mullah Omar or the general who said they weren't going after Bin Laden anymore.

This is all very interesting in the geopolitical sense (i.e. Musharraf has gotten away with murder these past five years, and nothing seems to touch him), but I think really comes back to another of the major contradictions of the Bush administration: they have put an immense focus on global democratization while at the same time disdaining efforts to win over foreign voters. Their approach to foreign policy is entirely limited to trying to browbeat foreign leaders (many of them unelected) into cooperation while steadfastly refusing to engage the concerns and complaints of common people throughout the Middle East and South Asia. That can work, to some extent, for a while. But if you succeed in democratization you will learn that those opinions matter a great deal. We saw Hamas elected in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muqtada al-Sadr's party in Iraq, Amadinejad in Iran, and now we're seeing Musharraf cater to Islamists in Pakistan. If there were elections in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East, I expect we'd see exactly the same results. We are pushing for democracy at the same time that we advance policies that could not be better designed to inflame opinion against us. I begin to wonder if these guys understand what democracy means...

I tend to support the idea of democratization simply because it will have the impact of forcing our hand in dealing with these issues. For now we can find pliant leaders and ignore the issues of the Islamic street. But I doubt there will be any serious progress in the war on terror until those issues are dealt with, and by having governments elected that will advance these issues more forcefully the US will have little choice but to address them. Funny, but I doubt that was what the neocons had in mind...

What Is Musharraf Up To?

So Pervez Musharraf claims that Dick Armitage told a Pakistani general that the US would bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if they didn't cooperate in the war on terror. Armitage now denies it, George Bush say if it happened it was Colin Powell's fault. My question is: why on earth is Musharraf disclosing this? As the story linked above notes, it hurts him badly on the domestic front. It is impossible for him to claim to be helping the US on a principled basis now. And while capitulating to US threats might have been a wise policy choice it is politically indefensible. The Islamic extremists in Pakistan have already tried to assassinate Musharraf (more than once). It is hard to imagine him wanting to pour more fuel on that fire.

I can only come up with two possible explanations: a) he is selling his book or b) looking for an excuse to resist cooperating with the US. Certainly he has succeeded at moving copies of his book with this claim, but I don't buy that as a real explanation. I look at this in conjunction with the news clip I posted a couple weeks ago about Pakistan bailing on the hunt for Al Qaeda as possibly representing a major repositioning for Musharraf and Pakistan. When the US comes and starts leaning on Musharraf to buck up and kill some terrorists he will now respond, "well hey guys, I'd love to cooperate, but I'm so unpopular now (and so by the way are you Americans) because of this 'stone age' thing I really can't afford to help. But have fun storming the castle!" Maybe that's not it, but there's something going on here. Musharraf is not so stupid as to not realize political price he would pay for going public on this. Somewhere there's a payoff for him...

Pakistan Waves the White Flag

I just wanted to put a link up here after discussing this topic with V over the weekend. Pakistan signs peace deal with pro-Taliban militants. Some choice excerpts:

In a move that some say appears 'a total capitulation' to pro-Taliban forces, Pakistan signed a peace deal with tribal leaders in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan Tuesday, and is withdrawing military forces in exchange for promises that militant tribal groups there will not engage in terrorist activities.
...

The New York Times reports that the deal "is widely viewed as a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army, which has taken a heavy battering at the hands of the mountain tribesmen and militants, who are allied with the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
...

Although Mr. bin Laden is thought to be in the area, Pakistani officials have given mixed signals as to whether he would still be considered a target by government forces. In his blog for ABC News, Brian Ross reports that Pakistani Major General Shaukat Sultan said in an interview that bin Laden "would not be taken into custody, as long as [he] is being like a peaceful citizen."

Unbelievable, isn't it?

A Rival to NATO?

There's an article on CSM about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a military alliance potentially involving China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the various -stans. It's an interesting idea, but do these countries have anything in common other than an interest in increasing their influence? It would be an extremely potent group, one that probably could rival NATO in power in coming decades, but I have a hard time seeing any coherent policies or positions that these nations could all agree on.

Pakistanis Tire of Islamism?

A very interesting development from recent elections. I think radical Islamism is too strong in Pakistan to depart quietly, but this is a nice step forward.

And the Punishment for Illegally Selling Nuclear Technology Is...

Weapons for everybody! Slate reports that Pakistan is to be rewarded with $1.5 billion in shiny new American weapons. That'll teach that dog Musharraf to sell nukes behind our back.

Al Qaeda In the Majors Now

The Seattle Times is relaying (via the AP) this story from London-based al-Hayat newspaper that al Qaeda obtained "tactical nuclear weapons" from the Ukraine in 1998. I have been unable to locate the original al-Hayat story, but Reuters is also reporting the story.

This revelation, on top of A.Q. Khan's admission that he was selling nuclear secrets to a number of states throughout the world, spells double-trouble. All nations must now face the strong possibility that non-state actors have nuclear weapons (not just "capacity and intent," as President Bush is recently fond of saying of Saddam). World security strategy must respond by moving from non-proliferation to disarming these terrorist groups--a far more challenging task.

While I cannot claim to know what approach is best under these new circumstances, it is plain to me that the United States cannot act unilaterally to address this threat. Our intelligence community is not up to it, and our diplomatic capital has been drained. Furthermore, capitulation has failed. The former Soviet states, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia must be brought in line with the universally-shared goal of world security. That pressure must come from all nations together, whether under the auspices of the UN or through a summit organized to address world security.

I recognize the sensitive (im)balance of Pakistani governance but that does not argue for capitulation--rather, the fragile nature of Musharraf's regime favors immediate action. If Musharraf is knocked off by his own people it is highly likely the new leadership will be very opposed to the current global power structure. But Musharraf has already displayed how untrustworthy he is--we have lost the strings of our puppet. The longer the world allows the current scenario to continue the greater the threat becomes. That sense of urgency applies equally to Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet states. It should not be left to state sovereigns to patrol threats that permeate well beyond state borders.

Re: The Pakistani Patsy

Well, the Washington Post is advocating a harder line with Musharraf. Not mentioned whatsoever in the story was popular resistance to Musharraf's continuing capitulation to the US. I may be wrong on this, there may be more room for pressuring Musharraf than I think there is. However, any serious analysis of how strongly we address this issue, in my opinion, needs to include some risk assessments as to how far we can push before Musharraf's administration is toppled and assessments of what kind of situation would result if that occurs.

Re: The Pakistani Patsy

If ever there were a country with which the US had a messed up relationship, Pakistan is it. It's a militant Islamic country with nukes and a Western-friendly dictator. The State Department has to walk a very fine line with Musharraf. On the one hand they need to pressure him to help them get Osama, to crack down on Taliban and Al Qaeda militants, and to try to control militant activities in Kashmir. On the other hand, the more he cooperates with us, the less popular he gets. There have already been two assassination attempts on him in the last couple months. Musharraf is desperately trying to hang on to control of his country, and the US is desperately trying to hang on to its control of Musharraf. Being as it's a dictatorship, nobody knows who would succeed him if/when Musharraf gets killed. The nightmare scenario for the US is that an anti-Western Islamic faction takes control of the government (think Iran, 1979) and the nuclear arsenal. My interpretation of Boucher's comments is: "We'd like to beat them bloody for this... but we're really not in a position to be aggressive with these guys."

The Pakistani Patsy

This link from Yahoo News shows the heartfelt apology by Abdul Qadeer Khan--father of the "Islamic bomb"--for "the extremely unfortunate events of the last two months." In his statement, which was broadcast on the official Pakistan Television (PTV) Khan insisted that there was never official authorization for his activities. He also appealed to the people of Pakistan "in the supreme national interest to refrain from any further speculations and not to politicize this extremely sensitive issue of national security." (The full text of his statement may be found here.)

I find it curious that the whole speech was broadcast in English--although it might be the most widely understood language there, I do not know. The official language is Urdu, although according to our Department of State's background note on Pakistan, only 8% of the population speak it. Almost half, however, do speak Punjabi.

In any event, the message seems to have gone over well. The Pakistan Cabinet voted today to pardon Mr. Khan for his activities. Here at home
(this Washington Post article reports) State Department Boucher stated: "We think that the process of investigation that's been undertaken by the Pakistani government does indeed seriously demonstrate that President Musharraf and the government of Pakistan take seriously their commitments, their assurances that they were not going to allow their technology to be used to help other nations that might be trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. . . . The way this has been proceeding is evidence that Pakistan, too, is determined to meet those commitments."