Saturday, December 29, 2007
Bhutto's death could be a positive.
Common sense missing on Pakistan.
by Ferdinand III
The media coverage of Pakistan is with some exceptions, largely terrible. The media is hoping for a Pakistani civil war, a toppling of President Musharraf, and by extension a defeat of US interests in the region. None of this will come to pass. We need to have some common sense about a place about which, we know little. And what we do know, suggests that Bhutto's death is actually a positive event.
What we do know however, is more or less the following, and it is these facts which should determine our policy with Pakistan.
-Between 40-50% of Pakistanis support Al Qaeda and radical Islam.
-Pakistan has no history of democratic processes or institutions.
-Pakistan is a country of 160 millions with nuclear warheads.
-The Pakistani army and intelligence services are infiltrated by radical Islamists.
-We need Pakistani help to win in Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Those are the salient facts. So what flows from that? Our self-interests would dicate that we – the US, or the 'West' – need to have a pro-Western government running the country, able to control the military and its nuclear arsenal and able to purge its agencies of Islamists. If they can lend support to suppressing the Taliban and Al Qaeda so much the better. Importantly the government has to have the capability to manage and stabilise a country with 50% support for Al Qaeda. This means a military government.
Musharraf has delivered with the help of $1.3 billion per annum in US aid, far more than anyone had hoped for back in 2001. Not only has Pakistan not become an Al Qaeda run state; its economy has grown 7% per year, its stock markets have recently doubled in value, foreign investment is now close to $4 billion per annum, and its ability to help us fight and defeat the Taliban are growing each year. Working with Musharraf has paid off.
Pakistan does not need nor want democracy and it is certainly not a smart US or Western policy to impose it. In fact it would be a disaster.
So back to Bhutto.
Bhutto was PM for 2 terms, and according to the Globe and Mail of Toronto, was a corrupt, autocratic leader, who gave herself the title of 'Chairperson for Life', of her party. Her husband ran the infamous 'Ministry of Investments', which was a conduit for the Bhuttos and their friends to steal money. Billions were taken out of the country. Pakistan's debt exploded, its economy shrank and Bhutto was far more lenient with the Taliban and radical Muslim's than Musharraf has been.
Yet she returned trumpeting democracy, openness and fighting Al Qaeda. Did she mean it? Who knows. Maybe, but probably not, given her track record. It was a populist message to a radicalized country. For Bhutto, democracy rhetoric meant hope and opportunity for the disenfranchised. This plays well to buy votes. In reality it would have meant the election of radical Muslims controlling the government.
As Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org stated, 'Given such a political climate, it should not be surprising if Bush’s call to Pakistanis to “honor Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life,” if followed through with free elections, results in the installation of an Islamic regime in Pakistan. Then a nuclear-armed state dedicated to the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism will alter the uneasy status quo in the Islamic world and the world at large, forever.'
This makes sense – except to the media and US policy makers. The Wall Street Journal makes thie claim that, 'The murder of Bhutto was not just an attempt to derail Pakistani democracy, or prevent an enlightened Muslim woman from taking power. It was a counterattack, apparently by the Pakistani Taliban and al Qaeda, against a U.S.-backed transition from direct to indirect military rule in Pakistan by brokering a forced marriage of "moderates.'
Maybe Bhutto's death was a counter-attack against a pro-US politician. That does not change the facts on the ground. We are in a war, the Islamists and radical Muslims are ruthless in their means to win the struggle and in Pakistan the objective is to establish a radical Sunni-Muslim state. That is the current reality. Why then would someone chatter about democracy and Western style governance?
Bhutto's death could actually be a positive. The world is again awake to radical Islam's intentions. Musharraf can use this opportunity to open up some parts of the election process and ensure some form of pluralist democracy – defusing thereby tensions and demands that he 'do more'. He can plausibly argue that the state is under direct attack and needs to prosecute more acutely, the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, thereby helping the US along the border areas. He can also use the opportunity to ask for more aid, in exchange for more aggressive tactics against the radical Muslims. Bhutto's death, far from being Musharraf's demise, could be a bloody blessing in disguise.
This analysis flies against conventional wisdom, and the usual hysteria that all is lost. Like many in the US media the Wall Street Journal, along with President Bush and his advisors, still miss the essential point. Pakistan has no history, culture, traditions or universal support for a Western-styled democracy. None. All you will get by pushing out Musharraf and installing some vapid, wimpy vision of 'democracy' is a Talibanic-Jihad state – with nuclear weapons. When Pakistan is ready for a Western inspired state, the Pakistani people will create one. Period.
So in summary Mr. Spencer and the 'realists' are right. Bhutto's death offers up some opportunity. It should force us to keep Musharraf in place. The West will have to work even more closely with the Musharraf government and its military to purge Al Qaeda and Taliban infiltrators. Greater care will need to be taken by Musharraf's regime to stabilise the country. An increase in aid to support Musharraf's 'reforms' should be made, and the toning down of doom and gloom rhetoric, should be enforced.
In a few months Pakistan will be more stable, and more able to help us in the war against Islamic fascism. That is what reality dictates which is why the media, and the US-EU elite will probably demand and try to do the opposite.