7/30/2019 Musharraf
1/2
4 | NEW STATESMAN | 7 JANUARY 2008
As long asMusharraf is in
power,Pakistanwill not be stable
Over the past decade one country hascaused more alarm in the
west thanany other over its weapons of mass
destruction. It is neither North Korea, norIraq, nor even Iran.
Pakistan is the concern.
That is why the decision was taken totolerate General Pervez
Musharraf when heseized power in a military coup in 1999.After
9/11, Pakistan became the front line inthe so-called war on terror,
and its leaderbecame George W Bushs main partner.Musharraf promised
to do what he could toroot out al-Qaeda camps on the border
withAfghanistan, to turn in senior figures fromthat organisation,
and to keep Islamists atbay within his own country. In
return,billions of dollars were poured into Pakistan.Most of the
cash went to the military.
Throughout this time, the army, andparticularly the intelligence
service, the ISI,maintained strong links with Islamistgroups, while
the father of the countrys
bomb, A Q Khan, confessed to selling
nuclear technology to Pyongyang. Khanwas pardoned by Musharraf,
and witha nod from London and Washington littlemore was said.
Musharraf was indulged, but not trusted.In the words of Franklin
D Roosevelt, hemight have been a son of a bitch, but at leasthe was
Americas son of a bitch. He wasencouraged to crack down on
militants inthe increasingly lawless northern region ofWaziristan
and to smash an Islamist protestat the Red Mosque in Islamabad.
Amid the crackdowns, Musharrafsrefusal to countenance the
reinstatementof civilian rule put the relationship with theUS under
strain. He was finally prevailedupon to reach an accommodation with
hiserstwhile enemies, notably Benazir Bhutto.A disreputable deal
was done, in which thescion of Pakistans best-known familywould
return from exile; all corruptioninvestigations against her and her
husbandwould be dropped. The constitution wouldbe changed to allow
Bhutto to return as
prime minister for a third time, whileMusharraf would remain
president.
The assassination of Bhutto on 27December destroyed these
best-laid plans.As Ziauddin Sardar reports on page 18, the
ISI was probably responsible for her death.Less clear is
Musharrafs connivance in it.Paradoxically, the less he may have
hadto do with it, the more that shows him to ba prisoner of the
security services.
With Pakistan in chaos, the US, the UKIndia and the other states
that stand to losemost are close to despair. Their options
arelimited. They continue to support theelections, but may now feel
obliged to backNawaz Sharif, the only remainingopposition leader
with national stature.Sharif, who was ousted by Musharrafin the
1999 coup, is much less of a friend ofWashington than Bhutto
was.
In any case, it is Musharraf who will pulthe strings. That is
why, as Andrew Stephenotes on page 22, western policy has failedso
spectacularly. The US and UK are stillquite happy to throw in their
lot withautocrats, as long as they pursue similarinterests. That
could be Hosni Mubarak inEgypt, the Saudi royal family (feted
onlyweeks ago in London), or, fleetingly, thetorturers and
murderers of states suchas Uzbekistan (as long as they
providedmilitary bases for the Afghan war).
Most Pakistanis believe that Washingtois content to work with a
pliant militarypuppet. Rather than support the democratrevival of
civil society, as seen in thelawyers movement and a reasonably
criticpress, the US wanted to use Bhutto as ademocratic fig leaf.
It has often regarded thcivilian dimension of Pakistani politics as
ahindrance to its security priorities.
Now the west must change tack.Musharraf should be encouraged to
stepdown. The various political parties shouldbe coaxed into
forming a government ofnational unity, while the full independencof
the judiciary should be restored (and thelawyers and judges
released from jail).
Even where military means may berequired, such as to prevent
theTalibanisation of Waziristan, Musharraf isthe person least
likely to succeed. In ethicaterms, he has been a disaster. In
pragmaticterms, he has disappointed. Pakistan willnever enjoy
democracy or stability under his rule.
The west has oftenregarded the civiliandimension of
Pakistanipolitics as a hindrance toits security priorities
Leader
www.newstatesman.com/leaders
