Published on Friday, October 26, 2001 in the Independent/UK
<http://www.independent.co.uk/>
Farewell to Democracy in Pakistan
'Far better to have a Mubarak or King Fahd than let Muslims vote for a
real government that might oppose US policies'
by Robert Fisk
Armored warfare schools, signals headquarters, artillery ranges,
military museums, cavalry lines, infantry battalion compounds... every
few hundred yards in every city, you come across them. Driving around
Pakistan is like touring a barracks.
Cross the Indus river at Attock and the thump of shellfire changes the
air pressure as General Pervez Musharraf's tanks move down the range.
Along the roadsides are artillery pieces dating back to the Raj,
45-pounders and French armor and old Sherman tanks on concrete plinths
to remind Pakistanis of their heroic martial past.
Their national defense journal carries stirring tales by former chiefs
of staff and extracts from the 1962 war diaries of the East Pakistan
Rifles. And this is supposed to be a nation threatened with Islamic
revolution?
It's an odd phenomenon, but there are times when the West seems to be
more worried about the "Islamisation'' of Pakistan than Pakistanis are
themselves. For has a military dictatorship ever been more blessed than
that of General Musharraf? General Zia-ul-Haq was held in contempt by
the West when he hanged prime minister Bhutto – but he was elevated to
ally and friend the moment that we needed his help in the anti-Soviet
war in Afghanistan. However, by 1993 Pakistan was almost declared a
"state sponsor of terrorism'' by the United States because of its
support for Kashmiri Muslim guerrillas.
When President Clinton arrived in the subcontinent last year, he paid a
state visit to India but gave General Musharraf – who had still to
declare himself president – only a few hours, favoring Pakistan with a
one-day return trip, a lecture on the evils of Osama bin Laden and an
appeal to General Musharraf not to hang the prime minister, Nawaz
Sharif.
Nor can General Musharraf have been too pleased with Colin Powell's ode
to liberty last January. "There should be no question in any world
leader's mind that the most essential ingredient for success in this
21st century is a free people and a government that derives its right to
govern from the consent of such people,'' the US Secretary of State
announced: "...America stands ready to help any country that wishes to
join the democratic world.''
Then came 11 September and General Powell produced a new song sheet.
"President Bush,'' he told us on 16 October, "asked me... to demonstrate
our enduring commitment to our relationship with Pakistan... we are also
looking forward to strengthening our co-operation on a full range of
bilateral and regional issues... we're truly at the beginning of a
strengthened relationship, a relationship that will grow and thrive in
the months and years ahead.'' All of which just goes to show what the
loan of a few air bases and the arrest of a few government-sponsored
Islamists can do. General Musharraf had taken "bold and courageous
action" against "international terrorism".
And in the blinking of an eye, there was General Powell promising to
take up the Kashmir dispute with India – the very nation that almost
persuaded America's State Department to put Pakistan on its "terrorism"
list in 1992. Newsweek outlined the US government's view with alarming,
if unconscious, frankness. "It may be a good thing that Pakistan is
ruled by a friendly military dictator,'' the magazine concluded, "rather
than what could well be a hostile democracy.''
This, of course, is the very policy that dictates Washington's relations
with the Arab world. Far better to have a Mubarak or a King Abdullah or
a King Fahd running the show than to let the Arabs vote for a real
government that might oppose US policies in the region.
Corrupt, lawless, drug-ridden, and inherently unstable Pakistan may be,
but General Musharraf allows a kind of freedom of speech to continue.
Anyone used to the arid wastes of Arab journalism can only be surprised
by the debate in the Pakistani press, the often violent anti-Musharraf
views expressed in the letters pages and the columnists who argue
forcefully for a return to democracy. If General Musharraf has to allow
Islamists their freedom to "let off steam'' – as Pakistanis like to say
– then he has to give equal space to the democrats.
Aqil Shah put it very well when he wrote in Lahore's Friday Times last
week that, by allying himself with America's "War on Terror'', General
Musharraf had secured de facto international acceptance for his 1999
coup. Suddenly, all he had wished for – the lifting of sanctions,
massive funding for Pakistan's crumbling industry, IMF loans, a $375m
(£263m) debt rescheduling and humanitarian aid – has been given him.
While General Powell mutters a few words about political freedom – and
none at all about Pakistan's nuclear tests – we hear no more of General
Musharraf's widely publicized"roadmap'' to democracy.
The problem, as Mr Shah points out, is that future peace and stability
requires sustained investment in solid secular democracies – not in
stable dictatorships. Yet the United States is now laying the
foundations of a long-term autocracy in Pakistan, a dictatorship not
unlike those that lie like a cancer across the Middle East.
The United States likes to call this a "strategic engagement'' and is
already, in its embassy's private press briefings, reminding journalists
of the corruption that smeared the democratically elected Sharif
government. Far better, surely, to have an honest, down-to-earth, clean
military man in charge.
Of course, we must forget that it was Pakistan's Interservices
Intelligence (ISI) outfits – the highest ranks of the country's security
agencies – that set up the Taliban, funneled weapons into Afghanistan
and grew rich on the narcotics trade. Ever since the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979, the ISI has worked alongside the CIA, funding the
mullahs and maulawis now condemned as the architects of "world terror''.
Most Pakistanis now realize that the ISI – sanctioned by Washington
rather than Pakistan's own rulers – turned into a well-armed and
dangerous mafia, and while money was poured into its smuggling
activities, Pakistan's people lacked education, security and a health
service. No wonder they turned to Islam and the madrassa schools for
food and teaching.
But will anything really change? Pakistan's military is now more
important than ever, an iron hand to maintain order within the state
while its superpower ally bombs the ruins of Afghanistan. Driving past
all those compounds and cavalry lines and barrack squares in Pakistan,
one can only be shocked by the profound social division they represent.
Outside in the street, Afghan refugees and Pakistan's urban poor root
through garbage tips and crowd on to soot-pumping buses to work in
sweatshops and brick factories. Inside, behind the ancient, newly
painted cannons and battalion flags, rose bushes surround well-tended
lawns and officers' messes decorated with polished brass fittings.
No rubbish litters this perfect world of discipline. Why should anyone
living here want a return to corrupt democracy? Especially when America
is their friend.
© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
###
NSP Lista isprobava demokratiju u praksi
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrBE8.bVKZIq
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
