Commentary by Naveed Ahmad in Islamabad for ISN Security Watch (03/02/05)
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?id=107634&lng=en
In the West, Pakistan’s military president, General Pervez Musharraf, has been praised as a staunch ally in the “war on terror”, but at home he is better known as a dictatorial leader who has kept democracy at bay by ensuring that the military controls every aspect of political life. And while there is no sign that his support in the West is waning, there have been indications that his days could be numbered, as the opposition picks up momentum. The Pakistani military dictator’s decision to stay on as army chief, while at the same time controlling the all-powerful office of the presidency, came as no real surprise to most Pakistanis. On 30 December 2004, Musharraf reneged on his promise made the year before to shed his military uniform in order to legitimize the presidency. Musharraf already has the power to appoint all three chiefs of the armed forces and the chief justices of the courts, sack an elected government, and even dissolve the parliament. And while he has made a good show before the Western world of targeting corruption, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and various opposition leaders say that Musharraf is only blackmailing parliamentarians with the threat of corruption charges if they should go against his policies. Musharraf will remain the head of the military until 2007, unless fate ordains otherwise, which it very well could in the face of growing opposition to his rule and increasing Islamist militancy - not to mention the three known assassination attempts he has survived since September 2001 alone.
Consolidating power
After the October 1999 bloodless military coup against prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the political forces' immediate reaction was to seek a fast transition back to civilian rule. The question for politicians all along has been how to get the army back in the barracks, and how to get on with politics as usual - one of the ultimate goals of which would be to put the military in its rightful place as the government department responsible for defending the country's geographical frontiers. Musharraf’s view, on the other hand, is a divergent one, which is entrenched within the military. He has established a military-dominated National Security Council and consolidated his position within the armed forces. He has the power to choose the commanders of both the air force and the navy, with no checks and balances. Musharraf is on his third extension as general since 1998. Since 1999, he has reshuffled and pre-maturely retired 38 lieutenant and major generals, amongst whom nine were commanding the army corps - and six alone in the most critical Rawalpindi Corps, the closest to the nerve and power center of Islamabad.Growing opposition
But opposition to Musharraf - both in the government and among militant forces - is growing, and there is always the fear of another assassination attempt. Those fears are especially prevalent since the suspected mastermind of the attempts on his life escaped from custody at Rawalpindi’s Chaklala air base and is still on the run. Opposition parties are growing bolder. Ditched and left in the cold, the religio-political alliance Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (the United Action Front, MMA), has already begun mobilizing its street power by launching an “oust Musharraf campaign”. The outspoken opposition leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, has repeatedly branded the general as “a security threat” to Pakistan, for siding with the US in killing innocent Muslims. At the same time, the pro-Western liberal and democratic Pakistan Peoples Party has half-heartedly joined the staunch, anti-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League of deposed prime minister Sharif, and is set to launch a resistance campaign from a common platform called the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD). While the influential MMA has already embarked on a hard-hitting protest campaign, the ARD has yet to chalk out its own plans. Sooner or later, though, the two groups are bound to join forces.The threat of Islamist militancy
Musharraf’s greatest worry is the growing political appeal for Islamists and militancy. The unchecked military operations targeting the country’s tribal region of South Waziristan have created much anger and discontent among Muslims in the area. The result has been a groundswell of support for Islamists. While the fractious political opposition may lack the required shrewdness to bring down the most powerful dictator in the country's 57-year history, the militants will prove more of a challenge. Musharraf’s fate depends less on support from foreign capitals and loyal subordinates in fatigues, and more on how smartly he manages to limit opposition to his person and policies from political and militant opponents. And the line between his political and militant opponents is becoming increasingly blurred, with six mainstream Islamist parties united under the MMA umbrella to form a powerful opposition that holds much influence in the restive Frontier and Balochistan provinces neighboring Afghanistan.Signs of reconciliation?
Despite the backing of the army and the US, Musharraf is floundering. So far, the military's backing has provided the system with a semblance of stability, but it is crumbling under its own contradictions. The parliament and the cabinet are almost dysfunctional. In a space of just three months, Musharraf has sacked one prime minister, pushed aside a second, and appointed a third. It is widely understood that he has initiated a reconciliation process with the pro-Western People’s Party of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. That move in itself demonstrates Musharraf’s own insecurity. Bringing Bhutto’s pro-Western party back onto the scene would leave less room for Islamist parties, like the influential MMA, to maneuver. In the restive and resource-rich province of Balochistan, where military forces are battling almost daily rocket attacks from tribal militants, there are also signs that Musharraf is rethinking his strategy. On Wednesday, he called for a peace resolution to the conflict in lieu of direct military action.Friends in high places
While the general thrives on military support at home, abroad he thrives on support from Washington, London, Paris, and other power centers. He has cleverly played his cards as a frontline ally of US President George Bush in the “war on terror”, while at the same time crushing the last vestiges of democracy in Pakistan and luring Pakistani citizens with promises of “good governance” and economic development. Former US secretary of state Colin Powell certainly recognized Musharraf’s usefulness in the “war on terror”, stating publicly that it was necessary for the general to hold on to his dual position as president and army chief in order to continue fighting terrorism. "We've got the Pakistanis playing a much more aggressive role in their frontier areas to go after Taliban and al-Qaida remnants and I am personally aware that General Musharraf has made a tremendous difference in helping us achieve our objectives," Powell told reporters in October 2004. Musharraf has deployed 70’000 troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border and has reportedly handed over 500 al-Qaida-linked suspects to the US. “General Musharraf has done for Pakistani what was needed the most over the past many, many years,” he said. In another talk with reporters, he said: "Three years ago this month, Pakistan was certainly tolerating if not directly supporting in many ways the Taliban. We had a very strained, difficult relationship with Pakistan and in a bold, strategic move, President Musharraf decided - in a phone call I will never forget on about the 13th or 14th of September [2001] - that he would move Pakistan in an entirely new direction. "And he has done that," Powell said. Indeed, few in Pakistan would argue against that: Musharraf has certainly taken Pakistan in an “entirely new direction” - but towards democracy it is not.Washington’s priorities
But democracy is not what Washington is primarily concerned with here. Musharraf used his latest tour of Washington, London, and Paris to convey to his domestic opponents that the world was siding with him. Powell rejected suggestions that Musharraf had breached any laws in wanting to retain his position as the chief of his country's powerful army, despite the unconstitutionality of holding that post along with the presidency. "The parliament provided for means for him to do this. He has exercised that option and it is now a matter for the Pakistan people and the Pakistan parliament, which has already judged this, to make any other judgments they wish to make," said Powell. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac were no less generous in their support for their Pakistani ally. Staunch support from the Bush administration has further boosted Musharraf's morale. Musharraf was the second leader, after British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to be received at the White House after Bush's November re-election. There is a clear indication that Washington wants Musharraf to stay in uniform as long as Bush’s “war on terror” continues. And a Pakistani leader in military uniform can certainly deliver far more than a democratically elected one. In a December editorial, the Los Angeles Times, noted: “The general's opponents, it seems, now have no option but to concede that their adversary has returned from the US as a powerful military leader who will remain in control despite what it may mean for the future of democracy in Pakistan.” However, the latest Freedom House study lists Pakistan in the “Not Free” category. It is not included among the countries that grant political rights and civil liberties to their citizens, but is instead ranked with the world’s worst rights violators, such as Rwanda, Angola, Cambodia, and others.The price for approval
But Washington’s continued support is not without conditions. In return for turning a blind eye to the crushing of democracy in Pakistan, Washington will continue to twist Musharraf's arm over a nuclear proliferation scandal involving one of its top scientists, who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Last February, top Pakistani scientist Dr Qadeer Khan confessed to having leaked nuclear weapons secrets to the three “rogue” nations. Musharraf pardoned Khan for his sins. But the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Khan’s revelations were likely just the “tip of the iceberg” of nuclear black market dealings. Both the UN and Washington are eager to get their hands on Khan to find out more. What it comes down to is this: Pakistan is the key to finding out about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and a compliant Musharraf is making this much easier. According to an article in The New Yorker in late January by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since last summer, if not before. Citing sources “with close ties to the Pentagon”, Hersh said an American commando task force had been working closely with Pakistani scientists and technicians who had had previously dealings with Iranian scientists. That task force, he said, was using information from Pakistani experts to infiltrate eastern Iran from Afghanistan in order to locate Iranian nuclear installations for a possible US attack. Pakistan has denied any “government-to-government contact” or cooperation between Pakistan and the US on the nuclear issue. But if Hersh’s reporting is correct, Washington is likely to want to hold on to these valuable Pakistani ties. In the meantime, it is willing to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s own nuclear development, which Musharraf is seeking to expand.Naveed Ahmad is an investigative correspondent for newspaper The News and monthly Newsline. He often contributes to reputed foreign publications. He is a visiting faculty on conflict resolution and civil-military relations at Iqra University. He was awarded the Hawaii-based East-West Center’s Jefferson Fellowship in fall 2000 and the Washington Press Center’s “Conflict Resolution and Nuclear Non-proliferation” fellowship in 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment