| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: Pakistan crisis: Most dangerous situation in the world |
| http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/04/le.01.html
Pakistan crisis: Most dangerous situation in the world
BLITZER: And coming up next, a state of emergency in Pakistan. Is a key U.S. ally in the war on terror on the brink of collapse? We're going to talk with a veteran journalist with inside knowledge about what's going on right now. "Late Edition," we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." A grave situation unfolding in Pakistan right now, with the president, Pervez Musharraf, declaring a state of emergency, suspending the country's constitution and firing the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court.
This is happening just days before the court was to decide whether President Musharraf's re-election was, in fact, valid. And there's word this morning from the Pakistani prime minister that any election could be as much as at least a year away.
It also follows the return from exile of Musharraf's political rival, the former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. Here with some special insight into what's happening in Pakistan is a reporter who's covered the story for a long time, Arnaud de Borchgrave. He's also with the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington. Arnaud, thanks very much for coming in.
Just before President Musharraf declared the state of emergency, you were in e-mail communication with Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister. And she wrote to you this -- and I'll put it on the screen: "The fact that militants hold open meetings without fear of retaliation proves that the Musharraf regime is totally inept, unwilling or colluding in their expansion. Our rapprochement talks with Musharraf have foundered in the quicksand of his failing promises."
First of all, give us some context of what she's talking about and how worried you are right now about what's unfolding in Pakistan.
DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, what's unfolding is a failing state that is also one of the eight nuclear powers in the world, Wolf. This is the worst nightmare that anybody can think of. Doesn't mean that the nuclear weapons are going to be used by bad guys tomorrow against us among the terrorists, but there is that danger.
BLITZER: Right now the arsenal is controlled by the military.
DE BORCHGRAVE: The arsenal is controlled by the military, and the warheads are separated from the launchers in different parts of the country, which is their security system. But beyond that, I don't know how they're controlled.
What we do know is that two of the four provinces in Pakistan are controlled by people who are pro-Taliban and pro-Al Qaida. The Red Mosque in downtown Islamabad has been retaken by the bad guys, by the pro-Taliban people. We know that Osama bin Laden is -- has got almost a 50 percent approval rating in Pakistan out of 160 million people. And that Musharraf himself is in the single-digit approval.
BLITZER: But Musharraf is pro-west, pro-U.S. He's cooperated since 9/11 with the U.S. in the war on terror. So does he have a point in declaring this national emergency in order to deal with this terror threat with the Islamic fundamentalists?
DE BORCHGRAVE: I don't think so. I think he could have done that and returned to democracy at the same time with Benazir Bhutto, elections in January.
DE BORCHGRAVE: I think her party, the PPP, would have obtained a majority and she would have been the next prime minister. But there's something in the constitution that says you cannot serve as a prime minister more than twice, which she has done in the past, and that's why it was put in the constitution, to prevent her from coming back.
But, no, I don't see how democracy would prevent a return to sanity in that country. Right now, it is out of control. The military, as you know, have been defeated in the federally administered tribal areas, in the north, especially North Waziristan and South Waziristan. Several hundred soldiers were captured without a fight. I mean, this is a very bad situation.
BLITZER: But the stakes, for the U.S., right now, in that part of the world, given the nuclear arsenal, the terrorist potential, Al Qaida, Taliban, getting some real strength over there, are enormous.
What should -- you've been watching this situation unfold for many years. What should the U.S. be doing right now?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, right now, there's not much the U.S. can be doing, given the fact that we're hopelessly involved in the Middle East and in Iran and this is crisis number three.
There's not much the U.S. can do, given the fact that Musharraf...
BLITZER: So, does President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Gates simply throw their hands up in the air and say, Musharraf, do whatever you want?
DE BORCHGRAVE: No, absolutely not -- "Musharraf, return to democracy as quickly as possible."
Unfortunately, right now, the noises coming out of Islamabad is that elections will probably not be held for another year. That will be a very dangerous situation because, inside the military, don't assume that they're all pro-West or pro-the United States.
Quite the opposite, they've got a lot of hard-lining colonels and majors in the army who don't like what they've been ordered to do.
BLITZER: But what about Musharraf and his prime minister right now, Shaukat Aziz?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Well, they will stay in power, and... BLITZER: But they are pro-West and they're aligned with the U.S.
DE BORCHGRAVE: Yes, absolutely. But, in the West, there's a, sort of, apprehension about, can ISI, for instance...
BLITZER: The intelligence service.
DE BORCHGRAVE: The intelligence service -- can ISI derail the whole thing?
And I think they can. There are plenty of pro-Taliban and pro-Al Qaida people inside the Inter-Service Intelligence Agency. BLITZER: Another element, very worrisome, of the e-mail you got from Benazir Bhutto, which you shared with us, and I'll put this up on the screen as well.
They claim, in two years, they can push NATO out of Afghanistan and replace President Karzai with one of their own, betting that the U.S. will be caught up in presidential elections for one year and will take another one year for the new administration to settle in.
So what is she worried about, that elements in Pakistan will overthrow Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, and put some ally of Pakistan in control of Kabul?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Yes. Because ISI is still very active all over Afghanistan. And Taliban, as I just pointed out, and Al Qaida have virtually won against the Pakistani army on the border, which enables, of course, the ISI to repenetrate Afghanistan and in effect, turn against -- I mean, counteract India's influence, which has grown quite strong, in Afghanistan, in recent times.
BLITZER: A very, very dangerous situation unfolding right now, arguably, the most dangerous in the world. Would you say that?
DE BORCHGRAVE: Without any question. Just think of Pakistan as one of the eight nuclear powers and out of control.
BLITZER: Arnaud de Borchgrave, an old friend. Thanks for coming in.
DE BORCHGRAVE: Thank you.
BLITZER: Coming up next, Senators Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein. They're standing by, live, with their take on the troubles plaguing this important U.S. ally in the war on terror.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: |
| Just heard that Arnaud de Borchgrave will be on C-SPAN's 'Washington Journal' tomorrow morning (Tuesday, November 6th, 2007) as one can watch via the streaming video link for C-SPAN at the bottom of C-SPAN.org:
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/
Subject: Commentary: Geopolitical nightmare
Date: Monday, November 5, 2007
Commentary: Geopolitical nightmare
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 (UPI) -- One of the world's eight nuclear powers, Pakistan is now a failing state out of control where Taliban, al-Qaida and their supporters have secured their privileged sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border; reoccupied the Red Mosque in the center of Islamabad; launched suicide bombers in widely scattered parts of this Muslim country of 160 million. More than any other country in the world, Pakistan is the breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Yet it enjoys the status of "major non-NATO ally" of the U.S. Now 60 years old, Pakistan has lived under military dictatorship for half its life.
In 1999, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the army chief of staff (the country's supreme military commander), seized power and decreed martial law. Last week, with Pakistan spinning out of control, Musharraf staged his second coup, decreed a state of emergency (tantamount to martial law), dismissed the Supreme Court, suspended the constitution, arrested some 1,500 politicians, lawyers and human rights activists, closed down all 50 TV channels except the one controlled by the government, imposed self-censorship on the print media, and appointed new Supreme Court judges willing to follow orders.
Twice deposed as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan Oct. 18 after eight years of self-imposed exile, in what she thought was a power-sharing deal with Musharraf. He had agreed to doff his uniform and run for president in a free election. As head of her Pakistan People's Party, Pakistan 's most popular, Bhutto would run in elections scheduled for January and if her party won a majority, she would become prime minister. Musharraf also guaranteed the deletion of a little constitutional impediment - political leaders are barred from serving three times as head of government. Everything began to unravel when two suicide bombers attacked her triumphal homecoming parade, killing 142 and injuring over 400.
Musharraf, meanwhile, got himself re-elected president by a majority of members of four provincial assemblies, the federal assembly and the senate - but all opposition parties boycotted the balloting and Musharraf feared the Supreme Court would not validate his election. His second coup d'etat followed.
Bhutto flew back to Dubai , her residence in exile, to reassure her three children who had watched the attack on television. She returned to Karachi as security forces were deploying throughout major cities. In a Nov. 3 e-mail to this reporter, Bhutto said, "Those who support the Taliban and oppose me continue to have high positions in government. Musharraf doesn't remove them nor has he kept any of the promises he made guaranteed by third parties. Yesterday (before Musharraf's state of emergency), television channels broadcast a meeting in Bajaur (one of the seven tribal agencies that border Afghanistan ) by a mullah claiming that he and his group will kill me in Rawalpindi (where she was scheduled to attend a PPP rally, now banned)."
Bhutto's e-mail added, "The fact that militants hold open meetings without fear of retaliation proves the Musharraf regime is totally inept, unwilling or colluding in their expansion."
"Our rapprochement talks with Musharraf have foundered in the quicksand of his failing promises. There is no move toward democracy. It's either back to dictatorship (1999) or back to a rigged election (2002). Or Musharraf is replaced with a pliant interim government for two years run from behind the scene by the same military hardliners. They claim in 2 years they can push NATO out of Afghanistan and replace president (Hamid) Karzai with one of their own betting that the U.S. will be caught up in presidential elections for one year and it will take another year for the new administration to settle in."
By way of conclusion, Bhutto's e-mail said, "The situation is grim, the risks are high, but I have faith in the people to turn around the problem if we can get a real election." That horizon seems to be receding. In recent opinion polls, Musharraf was in single digits, President Bush in the teens and Osama Bin Laden close to 50 percent. Pakistan 's extremist militants reject a woman as the nation's leader, as well as an alliance with the United States .
Mahmoud Al Hasan, a leader of the extremist Hezb-ul-Mujahedeen, the militant wing of the religious Jamaat-e-Islami party, described Bhutto and Musharraf as "slaves" of the U.S. Bhutto had the added distinction of being labeled an infidel. "What should be the reaction of jihadis?" Hasan asked. "They should definitely kill her. She is an enemy of Islam and jihadis."
There are several hundred, if not thousands, of jihadis willing to commit suicide to assassinate Bhutto. This, in turn, could trigger a civil war in a country that has an estimated 50 nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The military are convinced it was Bush who compelled Musharraf to deploy some 100,000 troops in the tribal agencies on the Afghan border to eradicate Taliban and al-Qaida infrastructure. But their heart was never in it. And Musharraf himself confirmed U.S. pressure in his memoir, "In the Line of Fire." More than 1,000 Pakistani troops were killed, over 3,000 injured and almost 300 captured. A number chose to stay with the Taliban fighters and the others were released after pledging not to attack their "brothers."
With Taliban and al-Qaida sanctuaries now secure in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, the NATO campaign to whittle down Taliban's guerrilla units in Afghanistan could last for years. But those doing the fighting with U.S. units - Canadian, British and Dutch contingents - were beginning to lose political and public opinion support at home. Logistics were costly with no end in sight. What they originally thought might be a two- to three-year peacekeeping commitment could now take five to 10 more years. The Afghan army, according to a Canadian assessment, won't be able to manage security till 2015. Even German, French and Italian units, stationed in relatively peaceful zones far from the Afghan border, could feel growing reluctance on their respective home fronts to keep them there. The narco-state stigma also rankled opposition politicians in Berlin , Paris and Rome . But opium is critical to the Afghan economy.
Gen. Sir David Richards, who commanded the Afghan mission until last February, said, "There are too few troops to conduct the operation in a manner that meets the basic rules of a counterinsurgency campaign" and that "we need a doubling of forces - and probably a lot more than that - if we are to achieve minimum goals." That would double the 41,000-strong NATO force to more than 80,000. The future of NATO hangs in the balance.
--
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071104/COMMENTARY/111040011/1012/commentary
Mideast: Talking the talk
November 4, 2007
Arnaud de Borchgrave - A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion runs deep, Saul Bellow once said. The illusion, yet again, is a Middle Eastern peace conference in November or December that would produce the final outlines and contents of an independent state of Palestine .
Seldom has such a vision appeared more chimera than reality, and yet seldom pursued more vigorously, this time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has logged eight trips to the region in 10 months, in the elusive pursuit of a legacy other than Iraq.
For advice on pursuing her Middle Eastern legacy, Miss Rice has consulted two former presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton), three former secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Madeleine Albright), and top Middle East negotiators who have made a career out of the "peace process." She now believes she can reel in a "viable and contiguous Palestinian state" in the next 12 months. But "contiguous" has already been made unattainable by Israel 's 456-mile physical barrier and Jewish settlements interconnected by roads banned to Palestinians.
Major concessions by ailing (prostate cancer) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, now the subject of seven police and judicial investigations for alleged improprieties, are out of the question. They would only accelerate his decline and the return to power of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who would promptly restore the status quo ante. Could the United States then make aid to Israel conditional on a Palestinian settlement? The next president might try what would be a foreign policy first — but a collective congressional holler would force a quick retreat.
The obstacles in the Palestinian camp are equally insurmountable. Palestinians and Israelis have diametrically opposed narratives of their history since the birth of Israel in 1948. And if they can't agree on contemporary history, let alone who was there first 3,000 years ago, how can they possibly agree on what needs correcting and on who owes what to whom?
As Miss Rice met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, the most westernized of all West Bank cities, where women now wear the veil, both seemed oblivious to the rising threat of Hamas from its Gaza base to the entire West Bank . Islamic fundamentalism is now on the march throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. It's no longer safe for Mr. Abbas to enter Jenin or Nablus , the two largest cities in the West Bank . Even his own security forces would not or could not protect him in what were until recently safe areas for Palestinian moderates.
Miss Rice, Mr. Abbas and their Israeli interlocutor Mr. Olmert, are in denial about the insuperable roadblock of Hamas, now a majority Palestinian movement that denies the very existence of Israel and dominates both Gaza and the West Bank . For Mr. Olmert, omerta (code of silence) is protection against oblivion. A majority of Israeli lawmakers said any attempt to slice and dice East Jerusalem to accommodate the Palestinian demand for a capital city would be Mr. Olmert's last curtain call.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the immensely popular right-wing firebrand, would then be assured of Israel 's leadership in early elections — back to Square One. Or Square Two with Ehud Barak, a reborn hawk, now defense minister, who trails Mr. Netanyahu in the polls.
Similarly, the billions of dollars the Palestinians will demand as compensation for the 4 million Palestinians denied the right of return (descendants of the 700,000 who left in 1948 "of their own volition," according to the Israelis, or were "terrorized" into leaving, say the Palestinians) will be compensated, not by Israelis as they see it, but by U.S. taxpayers once the haggling stops. So this is yet another nonevent.
Three major deal breakers — a "contiguous and viable" Palestinian state, Jerusalem, and the right of return — defy solution in the 15 months Condi Rice has left to achieve a Palestinian state for posterity. Even a Palestinian miracle would not detract from the specter of "World War III" conjured up by President Bush over Iran's nuclear ambitions — and echoed by oil at $93 a barrel, gold at $800, the dollar at an all-time low, and Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern nation in a year to announce its decision to build nuclear reactors (shorthand for something more lethal).
International Atomic Energy Agency Chairman Mohamed ElBaradei, who got the Nobel Peace prize for getting it right in Iraq , now says there is still no evidence of prohibited nuclear-related activities in Iran . And he urged the United States to halt its fiery rhetoric, as there is still time for diplomacy. "The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody," Mr. ElBaradei told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. But the Bush administration insists on talking to Tehran through the EU3 — France , Britain , Germany — while strengthening economic and financial sanctions.
The Korean model requires lots of carrots because Iran can get almost anything it needs from abroad via the free port city of Dubai in the UAE where falsified third-country labeling is not quantum physics. One senior American diplomat made a difference with North Korea . But in Washington , speculation about the probability of war with Iran is strangely bereft of desired outcomes and probable retaliatory consequences.
IAEA says Iran is years away from a deliverable nuclear weapon. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill went to Pyongyang to nail down the deal whereby North Korea agreed to deweaponize its embryonic nuclear warheads. Shouldn't Mr. Hill, or an equally capable diplomat, be dispatched to Tehran to at least explore the possibility of a geopolitical quid pro quo? A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq when conditions ripen; the lifting of all sanctions, diplomatic recognition and a nonaggression treaty should all be in America 's diplomatic quiver. In return, Iran formally agrees to forgo nuclear weapons — and grants total access to IAEA inspectors to check whatever they want with little advance notice.
Vice President Dick Cheney and his neoconservative friends would call this Munich-like appeasement. Unless bombing of Iran's suspected nuke sites is ordered by Mr. Bush before he leaves office, they think the next occupant of the White House, probably a Democrat, will "wimp out." Therefore, they conclude, the time to bomb Iran is now, and hang the consequences. This geostrategic assessment ignores Vladimir Putin's latest gambit — two high-level Russo-Iranian meetings in October. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel's Oct. 17 appeal to Mr. Bush for "direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks" with Iran didn't strike a responsive chord in the White House. Regional Middle Eastern war anyone?
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
| Fresh unrest as Pakistan mulls elections
By ROBIN McDOWELL, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago
Stone-throwing lawyers again clashed with baton-wielding police as President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government considered Tuesday when to hold elections amid growing international pressure to end emergency rule and restore democracy.
Unrest broke out in the central city of Multan, when hundreds of police blocked about 1,000 lawyers from leaving a district court complex to stage a street rally. Both sides pelted each other with stones and police swung batons to disperse the crowd.
An Associated Press reporter saw at least three lawyers were wounded, two bleeding from the head, and three police also were hurt by bricks flung by lawyers. At least three lawyers were arrested. In a separate clash, police stormed Multan's High Court and arrested at least six lawyers.
"This is the worst example of state oppression. We wanted to stage a peaceful protest but police entered the High Court premises, brutalized peaceful lawyers and arrested them," said Habibullah Shakir, president of Multan's High Court Bar Association. "Lawyers will continue their struggle for the restoration of the constitution until their death."
The clashes marked the second day of unrest since Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup, declared the emergency on Saturday and suspended the current constitution. He ousted independent-minded judges, put a stranglehold on the media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent.
Many saw it as a last-ditch effort to cling to power, although Musharraf said his primary aim was to help fight rising Islamic extremism. The moves came ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal.
Opposition groups say about 3,500 people have been arrested so far; government officials put the figure at more than 2,500 people, mostly in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh. Most detainees are lawyers, although opposition party supporters and rights activists also have been arrested.
The authoritarian measures have drawn widespread international criticism, although so far only the Netherlands has punished Pakistan, freezing most of its development aid.
The U.S., Pakistan's chief foreign donor, says it is reviewing aid to Pakistan but appeared unlikely to cut assistance to a close ally in its war on terror. President Bush urged Musharraf to resign as army chief and hold parliamentary elections in January as originally planned.
U.S. aid to Pakistan has totaled more than $10 billion since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in America. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that military assistance may not be affected so as not to disrupt efforts to fight al-Qaida and other militants.
On Tuesday, deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who says he is under virtual house arrest at his official residence in the capital, addressed about two dozen lawyers inside the Islamabad Bar Association headquarters via telephone. About 200 protesting lawyers gathered outside.
"It's time for sacrifice, and the day will come when the constitution will be restored. It will be restored as it should be. There will be no dictatorship," Chaudhry said.
Lawyers outside shouted, "Musharraf is a criminal — we will not accept uniforms or bullets!" and "Traitor!"
Almost immediately after Chaudhry spoke, some mobile phone services in the city were cut. It was not clear if the events were related.
Musharraf has promised to restore democracy, but there did not appear to be a unified position among senior Pakistan government officials on when elections would be held.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said he would chair a Cabinet meeting later Tuesday to try to hammer out the date.
"But it will take some time," said Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, a Cabinet member who is close to Musharraf. He said the president wanted to go ahead with the polls as planned, but "some elements want them to be delayed for a year."
Musharraf told foreign ambassadors at his official residence Monday that he still planned to resign from the military.
"I am determined to remove my uniform once we correct these pillars — the judiciary, the executive, and the parliament," he was quoted as saying by state-run Pakistan Television. "I can assure you there will be harmony ... confidence will come back into the government, into law enforcement agencies."
Thousands have turned out to protest the state of emergency was imposed. But there does not appear to be a groundswell of popular resistance in the nation of 160 million, which has been under military rule for much of its 60-year history. Cynicism and apathy over the elitist political system is widespread.
Demonstrations so far have been limited largely to opposition activists, rights workers and lawyers, angered by the attacks on the judiciary.
Lawyers were the driving force behind protests earlier this year when Musharraf tried unsuccessfully to fire the independent-minded Chaudhry, only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court. Chaudhry was finally removed from his post on Saturday and new judges sworn in.
Musharraf also moved quickly to control the media. Police raided and briefly sealed a printing press belonging to Pakistan's largest media group. Broadcasts by independent news networks remained blocked, and domestic transmissions of BBC and CNN were cut.
Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, meanwhile, was expected to travel from Karachi for Islamabad later Tuesday and meet with other opposition parties on Wednesday. She is also slated to address a public meeting Friday in Rawalpindi, near the capital.
Bhutto, who has held inconclusive talks on forging an alliance with Musharraf to fight Islamic extremism, narrowly escaped a massive suicide bombing in Karachi on Oct. 18 that killed 145 — one of a string of attacks to hit Pakistan in recent weeks, amid rising religious militancy.
___
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmad in Islamabad, Ashraf Khan in Karachi, Khalid Tanveer in Multan and Zia Khan in Lahore contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:13 am Post subject: |
| http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071106/COMMENTARY/111060015/1012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perils of Pakistan
November 6, 2007
Arnaud de Borchgrave - One of the world's eight nuclear powers, Pakistan is now a failing state out of control where Taliban, al Qaeda and their supporters have secured their privileged sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border; reoccupied the Red Mosque in the center of Islamabad; launched suicide bombers in widely scattered parts of this Muslim country of 160 million.
More than any other country, Pakistan is the breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Yet it enjoys the status of "major non-NATO ally" of the United States . Now 60 years old, Pakistan has lived under military dictatorship for half its life.
In 1999, Gen., Pervez Musharraf, the army chief of staff (the country's supreme military commander), seized power and decreed martial law. Last week, with Pakistan spinning out of control, Gen. Musharraf staged his second coup, decreed a state of emergency (tantamount to martial law), dismissed the Supreme Court, suspended the constitution, arrested some 1,500 politicians, lawyers and human rights activists, closed down all 50 TV channels except the one controlled by the government, imposed self-censorship on the print media and appointed new supreme court judges willing to follow orders.
Twice deposed as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan Oct. 18 after eight years of self-imposed exile, in what she thought was a power-sharing deal with Gen. Musharraf. He had agreed to doff his uniform and run for president in a free election. As head of her Pakistan People's Party, Pakistan 's most popular, Mrs. Bhutto would run in elections scheduled for January and if her party won a majority, she would become prime minister.
Gen. Musharraf also guaranteed the deletion of a little constitutional impediment — political leaders are barred from serving three times as head of government. Everything began to unravel when two suicide bombers attacked her triumphal homecoming parade, killing 142 and injuring more than 400.
Gen. Musharraf, meanwhile, got himself re-elected president by a majority of members of four provincial assemblies, the federal assembly and the senate — but all opposition parties boycotted the balloting and Gen. Musharraf feared the Supreme Court would not validate his election. His second coup d'etat followed.
Mrs. Bhutto flew back to Dubai , her residence in exile, to reassure her three children who had watched the attack on television. She returned to Karachi as security forces deployed throughout major cities. In a Nov. 3 e-mail to this reporter, Mrs. Bhutto said, "Those who support the Taliban and oppose me continue to have high positions in government. Musharraf doesn't remove them nor has he kept any of the promises he made guaranteed by third parties. Yesterday [before Musharraf's state of emergency], television channels broadcast a meeting in Bajaur [one of the seven tribal agencies that border Afghanistan ] by a mullah claiming that he and his group will kill me in Rawalpindi (where she was scheduled to attend a PPP rally, now banned)."
Mrs. Bhutto's e-mail added, "The fact that militants hold open meetings without fear of retaliation proves the Musharraf regime is totally inept, unwilling or colluding in their expansion.
"Our rapprochement talks with Musharraf have foundered in the quicksand of his failing promises. There is no move towards democracy. It's either back to dictatorship [1999] or back to a rigged election [2002]. Or Musharraf is replaced with a pliant interim government for two years run from behind the scene by the same military hard-liners. They claim in two years they can push NATO out of Afghanistan and replace president [Hamid] Karzai with one of their own, betting that the U.S. will be caught up in presidential elections for one year and it will take another year for the new administration to settle in."
By way of conclusion, Mrs. Bhutto's e-mail said, "The situation is grim, the risks are high, but I have faith in the people to turn around the problem if we can get a real election." That horizon seems to be receding.
In recent opinion polls, Gen. Musharraf was in single digits, President Bush in the teens, and Osama bin Laden close to 50 percent. Pakistan 's extremist militants reject a woman as the nation's leader, as well as an alliance with America .
Mahmoud Al Hasan, a leader of the extremist Hezb-ul-Mujahideen, the militant wing of the religious Jamaat-e-Islami party, described Mrs. Bhutto and Gen. Musharraf as "slaves" of the United States . Mrs. Bhutto had the added distinction of being labeled an infidel. "What should be the reaction of jihadis?" Mr. Al Hasan asked. "They should definitely kill her. She is an enemy of Islam and jihadis."
There are several hundred, if not thousands, of jihadis willing to commit suicide to assassinate Mrs. Bhutto. This, in turn, could trigger a civil war in a country with an estimated 50 nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The military are convinced Mr. Bush compelled Gen. Musharraf to deploy some 100,000 troops in the tribal agencies on the Afghan border to eradicate Taliban and al Qaeda infrastructure. But their heart was never in it. And Gen. Musharraf himself confirmed U.S. pressure in his memoirs "In the Line of Fire." More than 1,000 Pakistani troops were killed, over 3,000 injured and almost 300 captured. A number chose to stay with the Taliban fighters and the others were released after pledging not to attack their "brothers."
With Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries now secure in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, the NATO campaign to whittle down Taliban's guerrilla units in Afghanistan could last for years. But those doing the fighting with U.S. units — Canadian, British and Dutch contingents — were beginning to lose political and public opinion support at home. Logistics were costly, with no end in sight. What they originally thought might be a two- to three-year peacekeeping commitment could now take five to 10 more years. The Afghan army, according to a Canadian assessment, won't be able to manage security till 2015. Even German, French and Italian units, stationed in relatively peaceful zones far from the Afghan border, could feel growing reluctance on their respective home fronts to keep them there. The narco-state stigma also rankled opposition politicians in Berlin , Paris and Rome . But opium is critical to the Afghan economy.
Gen. Sir David Richards, who commanded the Afghan mission until last February, said, "there are too few troops to conduct the operation in a manner that meets the basic rules of a counterinsurgency campaign" and that "we need a doubling of forces — and probably a lot more than that — if we are to achieve minimum goals." That would double the 41,000-strong NATO force to more than 80,000. The future of NATO hangs in the balance.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
| The Freedom Agenda Fizzles
How George Bush and Condoleezza Rice made a mess of Pakistan.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Nov. 5, 2007, at 7:18 PM ET
Now we've really got problems.
The state of emergency in Pakistan signals yet another low point in President George W. Bush's foreign policy—a stark demonstration of his paltry influence and his bankrupt principles. More than that, the crackdown locks us in a crisis—a potentially dangerous dynamic—from which there appears to be no escape route.
For much of last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top U.S. officials had been urging Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, not to declare martial law. He not only ignored these pleas; he defied them.
Last month, Rice persuaded Musharraf to let exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back in the country—and persuaded Bhutto to go back—as part of a power-sharing deal. The idea was that Musharraf, who doubles as army chief of staff, would retain control of the military in the fight against terrorism, while Bhutto would attract the loyalty of Pakistan's increasingly discontented democrats. That ploy, too, turned out to be illusory: Bhutto was attacked the moment she got back; Musharraf showed no interest in sharing power.
Musharraf is portraying his suspension of the constitution as a necessary step to stabilize Pakistan and fend off Islamist terrorists. Yet the timing suggests it was, for the most part, a power grab. Pakistan's Supreme Court was about to rule that Musharraf's reign as both president and army chief of staff was unconstitutional. That meant the coming elections (which may or may not now be called off) would have ended his reign. And so he dissolved the court. He also arrested many democratic activists and shut down the nation's independent media.
It should now be clear, if it wasn't already, that Musharraf has been diddling Bush & Co. the past three years or longer.
In exchange for his promises to root out Taliban terrorists on the Afghan border and within Pakistan's own intelligence service, Bush has supplied Musharraf with at least $10 billion in aid. Yet while Musharraf has rendered considerable assistance in the war on terrorism, the Taliban—and possibly Osama Bin Laden himself—retain their sanctuary in Pakistan's northwest territories.
In exchange for Musharraf's promises to be a good democrat someday, Bush has declared Pakistan to be a "major non-NATO ally." Yet, with his strategically timed state of emergency, Musharraf has revealed he's not at all interested in democratic transitions.
But what can Bush—or his successor—do about it? The problem is that there's some truth to Musharraf's official reason for his crackdown. He has been going after al-Qaida jihadists, especially those inside his own country, though not so much Taliban fighters on the border of Afghanistan. And he is in a genuinely tight spot. On the one hand, he fears what some Western officials call the "Talibanization of Pakistan." On the other hand, he can't go after them too avidly, for fear of sparking a backlash from some of his own officers who have Islamist sympathies and who don't want to be seen as fighting America's war.
As Daniel Markey, a former State Department specialist on south Asia, wrote last summer in Foreign Affairs magazine, the army is "Pakistan's strongest government institution and the only one that can possibly deal with immediate threats of violent militancy and terrorism."
If the United States were to respond to this power grab by cutting off aid to the Pakistani army, the army would turn elsewhere—and the Islamist factions would be strengthened. If the United States were to cut its links to Musharraf … well, Musharraf is the face of the Pakistani army. If he goes, probably some other strongman would take his place, but the tenuous coalition he has assembled could fall apart in the process, with unpredictable—but almost certainly unpleasant—results.
And let's not forget the ultimate unpleasant fact: Pakistan has a test-proven nuclear arsenal.
Someone was speculating this morning on the BBC that the Bush administration might have a secret ally, an agent of sorts, within the Pakistani military command, poised to step in and serve U.S. interests if Musharraf fell. This is very doubtful. First, there are the obvious reasons (Bush's intense commitment to Musharraf and the military's relative impenetrability). Second, if Bush did have some fallback leader, it's unlikely Rice would have put so much effort—however fruitless the gesture now seems—to getting Bhutto back in the country for a power-sharing gambit. Nor, by the way, are there any civilian politicians in whom the United States could put its hopes; as Daniel Markey indicates in his article (and he is far from alone in this view), there are no civilian politicians, parties, or other entities that could exercise power without the military's nod.
This is why the Bush administration's response to the clampdown has been, as they say, "muted." The fact is, the United States needs Musharraf more than Musharraf needs the United States. And the fact that he's rubbing our noses in it doesn't make it any less true.
We can't do much about this now, but we might have been able to do something about it two years ago or six months ago. The fact that we didn't is a grave indictment of Bush's foreign policy, both its practices and its principles.
For instance, nearly all of the $10 billion in U.S. military aid to Pakistan has gone to its military. Bush could have at least tried to funnel a larger portion of the aid to democratic institutions.
This crisis was triggered last March when Musharraf fired the chief justice of the Supreme Court for criticizing his rule. That set off the unprecedented street rallies by the nation's lawyers. That emboldened the Supreme Court, which started to take its duties seriously. That gave rise to the near-certainty that the court would rule Musharraf's reign illegal. That tipped Musharraf to suspend the constitution—and, with it, the courts.
Since Bush officials stay in touch with Musharraf quite frequently, and since they are known to pay at least lip service to democracy, someone could have at least advised Musharraf to get off this track. No one could have expected him to turn democrat, but he could have taken palliative measures—or cynical ones: for instance, paying off the justices—to ward off a crisis.
The Bush foreign policy was neither shrewd enough to play self-interested power politics nor truly principled enough to enforce its ideals.
One consequence of this crisis is that Bush's "freedom agenda" is finally bankrupt. He will never again be able to invoke it, even as a rhetorical ploy, without evoking winces or laughter.
In his second inaugural address, where Bush first declared that the main aim of his foreign policy would be to spread democracy and topple tyranny all around the world, he warned dictators that good relations with America "would require the decent treatment of their own people."
Musharraf's proclamation is the definitive proof that no dictator takes—or ever will again take—that warning seriously.
In the same address, Bush spun an appealing but specious syllogism: Tyranny breeds discontent; discontent breeds hatred and terrorism; terrorism threatens U.S. security; therefore, promoting democracy enhances U.S. security. Or, as he put it, "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."
Musharraf's proclamation, and Bush's muted response to it, proves that interests and ideals, alas, still sometimes clash.
But the most dismaying contradiction appears in the 2006 edition of the official document titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." In his introduction, Bush wrote, "We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy."
Musharraf's proclamation reveals that we are not the "sole superpower" that Bush and his associates thought we were; that sometimes the combination of vital interests and mediocre diplomacy put us all too desperately at the mercy of events.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2177249/ | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
