Musharraf, Out of Tricks
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Parties comprising Pakistan’s ruling coalition continue to be deeply divided in the aftermath of former president Pervez Musharraf’s sudden resignation last Monday. The late Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N), which lead the coalition, were able to agree on impeachment charges that forced Musharraf out of office. They appear unable to agree on much else, and notably on the key issue of reinstating dozens of judges sacked by Musharraf last year, as Islamic insurgency in the tribal areas and the collapse of Karachi’s Stock Exchange continue unabated.
Musharraf’s resignation was long overdue, and Western editorialists lamenting his departure are mistaken to assert that the devil we knew was preferable to the ensuing power struggle. He has epitomized the ability of a number of autocrats in the Islamic world to present themselves to the United States as friends and allies, while at the same time conducting policies and pursuing domestic strategies deeply detrimental to Western interests.
Particularly galling was Musharraf’s ambivalent role in the “war on terrorism”: His ability to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds has been an affront to all enemies of jihad for years. The myth of Pakistan as a staunch ally of the United States finally may be laid to rest.
Musharraf’s chronic failure to create a modicum of stability at home was due to the illegitimate nature of his regime. The military coup that brought him to power in 1999 was initially welcomed by many Pakistanis after the chaos and corruption of Nawaz Sharif’s government. But after he appointed himself President in 2001, after he resorted to legal alchemy with a provisional constitutional order retroactively legitimizing the coup, and especially after he stage-managed a farcical referendum in April 2002 to extend his “mandate” for a further five years, Musharraf came to be universally loathed as an usurper.
In the years that followed, Musharraf did next to nothing to lower tensions along the ever-volatile border with India. It could hardly be otherwise: as Chief of Army Staff, Musharraf bypassed the civilian authority to launch a mini-war on India in the Kargil district of Kashmir in May 1999.
His record in Afghanistan was even worse. As we’ve pointed out recently, every successful insurgency in Afghanistan since 1979 enjoyed safe haven in Pakistan—and the current insurgency, which killed ten French paratroopers and wounded dozens others on Tuesday, is no different. In addition to the Taliban, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i-Islami, al Qaeda, and a myriad of local, tribally-based groups have also found support in Pakistan’s centrally administered Tribal Areas and in its North West Frontier and Balochistan Provinces. Weapons, ammunitions and supplies continue to be shipped from this region into Afghanistan. Afghan refugee camps based in those three areas are used to recruit fighters and suicide bombers who target the U.S. and allied forces across the border. Pakistani sources continue to tip off the Taliban about the movement and intentions of those forces and their local Afghan protégés. This has enabled the insurgent groups in Afghanistan to flourish, according to a recent RAND report: “Solving this problem will require a difficult diplomatic feat: convincing Pakistan’s government to undermine the sanctuary on its soil. If we look at the growing list of terrorist attacks and foiled plots in North America and Western Europe, it is evident that plots stemming from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region are the single most important threat to Western security.”
At home, Musharraf has backtracked on the oft-repeated promise to control the Islamic schools that are grooming new terrorists. Pakistan thus remains the epicenter of global jihad, a breeding ground for the new echelons of “martyrs,” and it meets the criteria for a slot on the Axis of Evil. In fact, Pakistan is an enormous Jihadi campus in which some ten thousand madrassas prepare over one million students for the Holy War. When pressed, Musharraf would announce the closure of some of the schools where “the eggs of the snake of terrorism are incubated,” only to let them re-open later. It can hardly be otherwise in a country founded on the pillars of Islamic orthodoxy.
Pakistan under Musharraf was the worst violator of the ban on nuclear proliferation, thanks to the work of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear program. In 2003 Khan made his “confession” and claimed that he had acted “without authorization” from Musharraf. His claims were at odds with Musharraf’s point blank refusal to hand any documents to the UN’s Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or allow its investigators into Pakistan. As it happens, Khan is an advocate of Muslim solidarity, eager to defy the West and pierce “clouds of the so-called secrecy.” He felt that giving nuclear technology to a Muslim country was not a crime.
The sentiment is shared by Pakistan’s elite, military as well as civilian, as befits the first modern state to be established on openly Islamic principles. It still suffers from many defects derived from its origins. This social structure predicated upon the supposed superiority of Islamic imperialism (ashraf) suggests that Islam is the cause, or at least a major aggravating feature in the array of Pakistan’s problems.
For as long as the country’s Islamic character is explicitly upheld by Musharraf’s successors, such as Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan cannot evolve into a functioning democracy or an efficient economy without undermining the religious rationale for its very existence. Without Musharraf’s duplicitous show in Rawalpindi, it is to be hoped that there will be fewer illusions in Washington about the nature of Pakistan’s problems—and about the problem of Pakistan for the rest of the world.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by polemicscat on 20 August 2008:
From what I am able to determine, democracy is incompatible with an islamic state—at least a democracy that has any protections for free-thinking citizens. So are leaders in the west delusional when they try to accomodate islamic beliefs in western society?
2 Comment by Homophobic Horse on 21 August 2008:
“So are leaders in the west delusional when they try to accomodate islamic beliefs in western society?”
Neoconservatism 101 – Freedom is everyone’s human right, including religious freedom – all religions express the “universal” truths of brotherhood. Or so the stupid, culturally illiterate, hubristic, arrogant, semi-communist NEOCONS like to believe.
3 Comment by M Koprivica on 21 August 2008:
Very insightful and informative column Dr. Trifkovic. US and western power’s thinking and policies on foregin relations seems to be higly flawed and unraveling ever more recently. Right on about Pakistan, as I have always thought and believed the antagonists in the so called ‘War on Terror’ are not defined, one cannot succesfully fight and win against an undefined enemy based on a vague, cliched title. And the scope of this ‘war’ is really an afront on our liberties instead, this falls in line with the ‘War on Poverty’ ‘War on Drugs’.
Leaders in the west are not delusional, they cannot confront Pakistan w/o an all out ground war, just like we see happening with the Russia/Georgia conflict.
Do you foresee any confrontations with Pakistan and the tribal powers by the West or the usual rhetoric, Dr. Trifkovic?
4 Comment by Bill Wilder on 21 August 2008:
More prescience from Dr. Trifkovic?
“Blast hits Pakistan Arms Factory–60 killed”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/south_asia/7574267.stm
5 Comment by Trifkovic on 21 August 2008:
“The usual rhetoric” will persist regardless of reality; ditto with Turkey, which is definitely “lost to the West” and whose leaders are systematically dismantling Kemal’s legacy. Changing the rhetoric entails recognizing one’s past mistakes. Our rulers, like the KGB/Cheka before them, don’t make mistakes…
6 Comment by DaveP on 21 August 2008:
The first measure one takes when in a state of war, is to secure the Home front.
The USA and the UK, two countries that are in the van of the war – in Iraq and Afghanistan, are also the two countries that have not just failed to secure the Home front, but have actively encouraged Muslim immigration.
7 Comment by Bill Wilder on 21 August 2008:
Not to be too flippant, but I think this is a pretty good commentary on things in SW Asia
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/45030-the-onion-volatile-india-pakistan-standoff-in-11-680th-day
8 Comment by Matt on 22 August 2008:
The source of the problems in Pakistan is that, in return for funding a water project, Saudi Arabia required Pakistan to adopt the Sharia Law. This happened thirty or forty years ago. Also, Saudi Arabia, which gave sanctuary to the bloody Idi Amin, also required the same of the Sudan in return for aid. Saudi Arabia is the head of the snake and has insinuated itself into the body politic of the USA & UK.
9 Comment by Scott on 27 August 2008:
I am afraid you are totally wrong on this one. I spent a lot of time working with the Musharraf Government on privatizations. The Musharraf Government was excellent. Shaukat Aziz, Salman Shah and others were excellent. The US Gov’t sold our Musharraf in the same way they sold out South Vietnamese and Cambodian leaders. The Chief Justice Musharraf sacked was a total disgrace. His ruling on the Pakistan Steel Privatization which triggered all the problems defies any logic. The judge effectively shut down the governments economic reforms as well as their attempts to enforce security in the frontier provinces. The US had been orcestrating Bhutto’s return for years while at the same time asking Mussaraf 1)to crack down in a region of Pakistan that has always been difficult and that was rendered ungovernable due to the war in Afghanistan and 2) telling him he couldn’t sack this horrible judge. The US should shoulder a lot of the responsibility for the disaster that is current Pakistan
10 Comment by Akira on 28 August 2008:
SCOTT
Re: “The Musharraf Government was excellent.”
Does that mean that you would have helped them fight against the US?
QUOTE:
In a memoir released on Monday, President Pervez Musharraf recounted how he decided it would have been suicidal to confront a U.S. attack after being threatened by Washington a day after al Qaeda’s strikes on September 11, 2001.
…
Elaborating on how he decided to take a foreign policy U-turn by dumping support for the Taliban, Musharraf described how he first weighed the option of fighting the United States.
“I war-gamed the United States as an adversary,” he wrote, saying he assessed whether Pakistan could withstand the onslaught.
“The answer was no, we could not, on three counts.”
Pakistan’s military would have been wiped out, its economy couldn’t be sustained, and the nation lacked the unity needed for such a confrontation, Musharraf wrote.
Furthermore, Musharraf was worried that if Pakistan did not accede to Washington’s demands, the United States would take up an Indian offer to provide bases.
…
He also expected the United States would seek to destroy Pakistan’s newly developed nuclear weapons. And he feared the infrastructure built since Pakistan’s formation in 1947 would be decimated.
Finally, Musharraf said he had to answer whether it was worth Pakistan destroying itself for the sake of the Taliban, though Pakistan had supported the Islamist militia’s government.
“The answer was a resounding no,” Musharraf concluded.
UNQUOTE
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/musharraf-claims-he-considered-fighting-us-after-911
Is that why you admire Musharraf? Because even though he hates America and all of the non-Muslim world with a passion, and even though he’d love to see Washington nuked, he was sensible enough to pretend to support his enemy in order to rip off American tax-payers? Yes, very admirable.
+ + +
MATT,
Re: “The source of the problems in Pakistan is that…Saudi Arabia required Pakistan to adopt the Sharia Law. … Saudi Arabia…also required the same of the Sudan.”
That’s strange.
I wonder what those three countries have in common.
Saudi Arabia is Arab.
Sudan is mostly black African, with Christians kept out of power.
And Pakistan is mostly Indo-European.
I can’t figure out what possible connection there could be between Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, and Pakistan [and Kosovo, and Iraq, and Iran, and Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, and Hezzbollah, and Hamas, and Syria, and Idi Amin, and ...]. It’s a mystery.
11 Comment by Akira on 28 August 2008:
I think I’ve discovered the root of Pakistan’s problems!
PAKISTANI CONSTITUTION
Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;
And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order; Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people; Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah; … we, the people of Pakistan, Cognisant of our responsibility before Almighty Allah and men; Faithful to the declaration made by the Founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, that Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice; … Do hereby, through our representatives in the National Assembly, adopt, enact and give to ourselves, this Constitution.
2. Islam to be State religion: Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.
31.Islamic way of life: (1) Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. (2) The state shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan, : (a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language and to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Holy Quran; (b) to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards; and (c) to secure the proper organisation of zakat, ushr, auqaf and mosques.
+++
Now, having identified the source of the problem, it is clear that there are two very simple solutions.
(a) The constitution could be re-written, removing all references to the Koran and all of the other evil Mohammadan nonsense; which would make Pakistan culturally Indian again, and would mean that they could just get back together again, like in the good old days.
or
(b) The Koran could be re-written to be more like the New Testament. In fact, it would be easier just to replace the Koranic text with the Christian text.
As soon as I can figure out who’s in charge in Islamabad [that name will have to be changed too, of course], I intend to write to them with my self-evident solution. I expect a positive response.