I am glad to see Musharraf removed from power. American support of sis continued reign in Pakistan represented a massive disjunct between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its practice. I fully support the concept of democracy promotion, and Musharraf was an obvious obstacle to that objective. He may have brought a sense of stability to India-Pakistan relations (though I would be extremely reticent to characterize the situation in Kashmir as "stable"), but he undermined the rule of law in his own country and did not do enough to prevent the Taliban and al Qaeda from using Pakistan as a base to plan and execute attacks against Canadians, Americans, and others in the multinational coalition working to rebuild Afghanistan.
Now we enter a period of uncertainty--who will succeed him? Will they seek to move the country back towards the rule of law, democratic governance, and civilian leadership? Will they go in the opposite direction, seeking closer ties with Islamist extremists, which has long been held by realists as an argument for keeping Musharraf in power (the old "he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" argument)? Only time will tell, and all we can do is hope that the next government in Pakistan embodies the voice of its people and their aspirations.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
18 August 2008
07 August 2008
Smile of the Day
Pakistan's Parliament is looking into impeaching former military dictator--now just very unpopular and corrupt President--Pervez Musharraf. I've long argued that Musharraf has only retained his popularity in the United States due to realist concerns that he's the least-bad option in the strategically-important country. He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard, so the thinking goes. If not Musharraf, it could be a leader affiliated with the Taliban, or another extremist that would be more inclined towards Osama bin Laden than to Washington in terms of choosing side in the War on Terror & Tyranny.
Luckily, the voices of democracy are being heard in Pakistan. The country went through the trauma of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (herself not exactly liberty's greatest ally, but a more reliable friend than Musharraf) and is looking to move forward in a progressive manner. Should these forces mobilize and reach critical mass, it may be only a matter of time until Musharraf is replaced.
Luckily, the voices of democracy are being heard in Pakistan. The country went through the trauma of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (herself not exactly liberty's greatest ally, but a more reliable friend than Musharraf) and is looking to move forward in a progressive manner. Should these forces mobilize and reach critical mass, it may be only a matter of time until Musharraf is replaced.
29 December 2007
Thoughts on the Bhutto Assassination
First, belated holiday greetings to everybody. It's been a pretty busy week around here, hence no previous updates on what I got for Christmas or anything of that sort. Suffice to say, it was fantastic, possibly the best ever, and I hope that everybody had themselves a wonderful time. Thanks to everybody for all the wonderful gifts and cards, it means an awful lot to me.
I've been trying to formulate in my mind how damaging the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by a homicide bomber will be to the future of Pakistan's development as a reliable ally and friend of the West. The murder of an opposition political leader is unfathomable in Canada. People may have grumbled about Stephen Harper like they do now about Stephane Dion, but that is nowhere near the scale of the threat of violence and murder that Bhutto lived with on a daily basis. People who speak out against the actions of the government do not enjoy the same freedoms in other parts of the world as they do here--many end up in exile, in prison, or disappeared never to be seen again to challenge the government. What happened to Benazir Bhutto serves as a vivid reminder of that reality.
For a long time now I have been very wary of Western support for the regime of Pervez Musharraf, the once-military dictator who now rules the country as a civilian. I do not believe him to a reliable friend and ally in the conflict against Islamofascism, as if not he himself, there are certainly elements within his regime that coddle and turn a blind eye to the actions of terrorists who seek to kill innocent people. While Musharraf may condemn the act of terror committed this week, he does stand to gain a lot from it. The main political opposition is now without a leader, there is a lot of civil unrest stemming from the assassination that may give him carte blanche to institute martial law and/or cancel the forthcoming election, and there will be people looking to him to clamp down and impose security to prevent further political violence. All of this adds up to a potential nasty recipe for democracy, the rule of law, and the ability to look upon Pakistan as a true partner in changing the political face of the Middle East.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding Bhutto's assassination. We're not yet sure who is responsible, what will happen next, and how all the major players will react. It seems, however, that the coming weeks will be very ominous times in Pakistan, and the potential for further violence and a regression of freedoms in the country would appear to be very high.
I've been trying to formulate in my mind how damaging the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by a homicide bomber will be to the future of Pakistan's development as a reliable ally and friend of the West. The murder of an opposition political leader is unfathomable in Canada. People may have grumbled about Stephen Harper like they do now about Stephane Dion, but that is nowhere near the scale of the threat of violence and murder that Bhutto lived with on a daily basis. People who speak out against the actions of the government do not enjoy the same freedoms in other parts of the world as they do here--many end up in exile, in prison, or disappeared never to be seen again to challenge the government. What happened to Benazir Bhutto serves as a vivid reminder of that reality.
For a long time now I have been very wary of Western support for the regime of Pervez Musharraf, the once-military dictator who now rules the country as a civilian. I do not believe him to a reliable friend and ally in the conflict against Islamofascism, as if not he himself, there are certainly elements within his regime that coddle and turn a blind eye to the actions of terrorists who seek to kill innocent people. While Musharraf may condemn the act of terror committed this week, he does stand to gain a lot from it. The main political opposition is now without a leader, there is a lot of civil unrest stemming from the assassination that may give him carte blanche to institute martial law and/or cancel the forthcoming election, and there will be people looking to him to clamp down and impose security to prevent further political violence. All of this adds up to a potential nasty recipe for democracy, the rule of law, and the ability to look upon Pakistan as a true partner in changing the political face of the Middle East.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding Bhutto's assassination. We're not yet sure who is responsible, what will happen next, and how all the major players will react. It seems, however, that the coming weeks will be very ominous times in Pakistan, and the potential for further violence and a regression of freedoms in the country would appear to be very high.
17 March 2007
Shed No Tears for Musharraf
A story in today's Post details the current troubles being experienced by our "ally" and military dictator, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf. As you can imagine, my sympathy runs very low for the leader of a government that doesn't permit elections and enforces sharia law against the women of his country (readers will recall my March 3rd post where I discussed the state-mandated gang rape of a young woman for an offence her brother committed).
The imbroglio surrounding Musharraf intensified with his dismissal of the country's top judge on a whim. You see, dictators have the ability to make a mockery of institutionalized checks & balances and the rule of law in that fashion. He's also dispatched police officers to rough up the judge when on his way to court hearings to determine the legality of Musharraf's action and whether the judge can be fired (given that Musharraf has already installed a replacement, you can imagine how this will all end), and has been leaning on the Pakistani media to ease up on the anti-Musharraf stories in the newspapers.
Which brings us to the broader global problem: the United States has invested a lot in Musharraf to assist them during the War on Terror & Tyranny, to the tune of $10B in the past 5 years. If the concept of sending such funding to a tyrant to advance American aims sounds awfully Cold War-ish to you, you're not alone. It is exactly this type of alliance that undermines American calls for the rise and establishment of democratic rule of law societies around the world. It's fantastic that Pakistan has been helpful in rounding up some al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists--but not all of them and not all of the time--but the benefit gained from that does not cancel out the country's deficiencies in transparency, democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.
The problem in all of this is that if Musharraf is ousted, we don't know who he would be replaced with. Many in Pakistan do not support Musharraf's siding with the United States, and there is a significant level of Islamist fundamentalist sentiment. Many support, silently or otherwise, al Qaeda, and Pakistan was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during their brutal tyranny over the country. It is entirely possible that he could be replaced with the Pakistani equivalent of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, which would actually be worse than Ahmedinejad because Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. We know that top Pakistani nuclear scientists have already been arrested for attempting to sell nuclear know-how to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
This is where cold realism thrives. Musharraf is odious to the values we seek to advance in the world, but he's less bad than several potential alternatives that would impose strict(er) Islamic law, deny rights even more than presently, and openly support al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal makes it a country of great strategic importance, within the region and globally. American cash has worked to keep the extremists in line and somewhat mollify opponents of Musharraf's US partnership. Any shift in Pakistan could have severely negative effects in Afghanistan, the initial front of the War on Terror and arguably the greatest success to emerge from the American-led policy of regime change. These are not considerations that can be discarded simply to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. But that doesn't mean we should necessarily shed any tears for the "beginning of the end" for Musharraf.
*Note: this post almost got lost by GooBlogger's gremlins. I blame the snow.
The imbroglio surrounding Musharraf intensified with his dismissal of the country's top judge on a whim. You see, dictators have the ability to make a mockery of institutionalized checks & balances and the rule of law in that fashion. He's also dispatched police officers to rough up the judge when on his way to court hearings to determine the legality of Musharraf's action and whether the judge can be fired (given that Musharraf has already installed a replacement, you can imagine how this will all end), and has been leaning on the Pakistani media to ease up on the anti-Musharraf stories in the newspapers.
Which brings us to the broader global problem: the United States has invested a lot in Musharraf to assist them during the War on Terror & Tyranny, to the tune of $10B in the past 5 years. If the concept of sending such funding to a tyrant to advance American aims sounds awfully Cold War-ish to you, you're not alone. It is exactly this type of alliance that undermines American calls for the rise and establishment of democratic rule of law societies around the world. It's fantastic that Pakistan has been helpful in rounding up some al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists--but not all of them and not all of the time--but the benefit gained from that does not cancel out the country's deficiencies in transparency, democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.
The problem in all of this is that if Musharraf is ousted, we don't know who he would be replaced with. Many in Pakistan do not support Musharraf's siding with the United States, and there is a significant level of Islamist fundamentalist sentiment. Many support, silently or otherwise, al Qaeda, and Pakistan was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during their brutal tyranny over the country. It is entirely possible that he could be replaced with the Pakistani equivalent of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, which would actually be worse than Ahmedinejad because Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. We know that top Pakistani nuclear scientists have already been arrested for attempting to sell nuclear know-how to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
This is where cold realism thrives. Musharraf is odious to the values we seek to advance in the world, but he's less bad than several potential alternatives that would impose strict(er) Islamic law, deny rights even more than presently, and openly support al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal makes it a country of great strategic importance, within the region and globally. American cash has worked to keep the extremists in line and somewhat mollify opponents of Musharraf's US partnership. Any shift in Pakistan could have severely negative effects in Afghanistan, the initial front of the War on Terror and arguably the greatest success to emerge from the American-led policy of regime change. These are not considerations that can be discarded simply to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. But that doesn't mean we should necessarily shed any tears for the "beginning of the end" for Musharraf.
*Note: this post almost got lost by GooBlogger's gremlins. I blame the snow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)