Musharraf’s Crackdown
Every account that I’ve read of the recent developments in Pakistan has suggested that Musharraf has declared a state of emergency in order to go after the liberal opposition. It’s the media, political party activists, pro-democracy lawyers and others who are being targeted; it’s not the Taliban and other radical militants. As Arif Rifaq noted in The Baltimore Sun yesterday, Musharraf has somehow conflated the political opposition and the Taliban as an equally dangerous force. Barnett Rubin, blogging from Pakistan, confirms that opposition activists (and not radical militants) are the ones being harassed and imprisoned:
Recently Taliban appeared in Qisakhani Bazaar in the old city of Peshawar and ordered traders to remove “un-Islamic” posters. There was no reaction from the police or administration. There are dozens of Taliban FM stations broadcasting calls to jihad in both the tribal agencies and the “settled” (administered) areas of NWFP. Not one of them has been shut down; instead the martial law regime has blocked transmissions of liberal cable television stations and blocked the Blackberry network used by the political elite.
Musharraf’s refusal to seriously take on the Taliban suggests what I’ve written about before: that Islamic militants are a convenient boogeyman that pose a fairly manageable threat to the Pakistani regime. To Musharraf, the greatest danger is the burgeoning pro-democracy movement; it is not the random act of terrorism or the pseudo-autonomy of the tribal regions. Indeed, ensuring that there is an ongoing “Islamic threat” guarantees that the aid and the support from Washington will continue to flow.
So, what does this all mean? I share Xanthippas’ sentiment (and his frustration): “…once again we [have written] off concerns over democracy and accommodate dictatorship and tyranny, only with the now signature Bush approach of doing it in a way that is detrimental to our interests.”
7 Responses to “Musharraf’s Crackdown”
Call a spade a spade, it’s Martial Law despite the media’s softballing of an “emergency situation”. A puppet dictator is flexing his wings- . Pakistan has nuclear weapons and we’re worrying about Iran. Once again Bush is looking under the bleachers when his eyes should be on the field.
And once again America is siding with an expedient dictator while “fighting the good fight” against a larger enemy. During the cold war I can understand that, the stakes were nothing less than nuclear war between two superpowers. But now? Despite Bush’s hollow words about combating tyranny and promoting freedom he has gotten deep in bed with one. One whose promises of fighting terrorism are equally as hollow as Bush’s on values and freedom.
The official US position is against, not for, the crackdown. Do not substitute wishes or Bush-bashing for facts. (I’ve seen enough of that elsewhere on this site already.) Also, as with Musharraf, so with the Saudis — the USA has normally been supportive in large part not only because of oil (Saudis) interests, but because the alternatives would likely be worse. We cannot expect to wave a magic wand and yippee, everyone will be all happy and joyful and free and prosperous.
I just don’t like the hypocrisy. Why are we meddling at all? We aren’t going to keep him in power if he can’t handle it himself, we keep talking about him like he’s some valuable ally when he’s totally unable to help us root out Bin Laden in the Pashtun areas, and now he’s showing his dictator stripes while Bush makes speeches about how we defend freedom and democracy.
What I would give for a bit of honesty. Like, “Hey, we hate Bin Laden so much we will side with bastards as long as they help us get him.” I can appreciate that sentiment. What we get instead makes me nauseous.
And about your point on the US’s official opinion, if that opinion makes one whit of difference in the outcome in Pakistan I’ll happily eat my words. But rhetoric from Washington instead of yanking our money from under him seems a weak gesture.
Doesn’t this phrase in practice assume he’s actually trying as hard as he can? I believe he isn’t!
I suspect the likely alternative to him is feared. (Can Bhutto tame the terrorists, or would they kill her quickly or at least remove her government?)
What can we do promptly that improves the situation there, promptly? That means with respect to security and stability, not just to human rights.
It also wouldn’t bother me in the least and I suspect it wouldn’t bother most Americans if, were we to locate bin Laden, we’d go into Pakistan and get him ourselves, without securing the government’s permission there first.
The worst part of Mushraff’s actions is that he is closing off the steam valve, the means by which people can express frustrations without violence.
Once again, our administration expresses the right ideals by using the wrong language. The bad boys in power aren’t swayed when we talk down to them as if they were errant children (‘I told Musharaff to do such and such”) . That’s guaranteed to just stiffen theri resolve and defiance. No one wants to be someone else’s lackey especially not America’s lackey.
In his book, Mushraff clearly expresses his resentment at being given orders instead of being ‘consulted’ after 9/11 That resentment may well be contributing to his deaf ear today.
It isn’t just Bush, BTW. All the candidates brag about what they would tell Iran or some other
country to do.
It’s my belied that you can give orders much more effectively if you give the other guy a chance to retain his dignity (in public, at least) and phrase the order in terms of making a deal, with consequences on which you can deliver instead of threats on which you may not be able to deliver.
By far more impressive would be a statement explaining why such actions are detrimantal and a danger to stability progress and justice( the democracy theme is much too tainted, thanks to Iraq), and why it’s important to the US and the rest
of the world
Then we’ve got to scramble to find some consequences that won’t totally ruin a deal but that would make an imprssion. Not all the aid we give Pakistan is used directly for fighitng the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Carrots could include help in civic institution building. for example.
We are between a rock and hard place in Pakistan.
Melodramatic posturing won’t help on its own.
This will take some carefyk inesssing