Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Policies Have Weakened Pakistani Civilian Rule
Depending on whether you like watching your news or reading it, there were two very different reports on Pakistan this Sunday.
On CBS' "60 Minutes," Pakistani President Asif Zardari proclaimed that his nation is in a fight for its survival, with the Taliban "trying to take over the state of Pakistan." Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that Zardari's government reached a 10-day cease fire with a Taliban-affiliated militia in the northern Swat Valley. The militia agreed to stop fighting, and in return, the government agreed to implement Islamic Sharia law in the area.
How does one reconcile the two accounts?
First, let's dispense with the hyperbole. Pakistan is not on the verge of being taken over by Taliban militias.
Pakistan's 2008 elections demonstrate the bias of Pakistani voters for moderate leaders and mainstream Islam. Voters rejected fundamentalist Muslim parties and gave most of their votes to the moderates they knew best. In light of this, it is fairly clear that the idea of the Taliban somehow controlling Pakistan's 172 million people is absurd.
Still, Taliban-affiliated militias have done a great deal of damage. In addition to terrorist attacks, one Taliban-allied militia took over Pakistan's northern Swat region. Given that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation with a massive military, it begs the question: How can such a large country find itself unable or unwilling to control the actions of a small, extremist faction?
Many Pakistani civilians are perplexed by these realities. It seems evident that there is an underlying power struggle between Pakistan's civilian leadership and some factions of its military and intelligence institutions. In talking tough, perhaps President Zardari is attempting to reassert his own perceived authority.
This is yet the latest chapter in a long struggle between civilian and military leaders that has undermined Pakistan as a nation. It is a struggle for which the United States must take some of the blame. While the United States may not be responsible for the rise of Pakistan's past military dictators, it certainly prolonged their time in power. As a result, Pakistan's civilian institutions have suffered.
During each of Pakistan's major periods of military dictatorship, U.S. leaders lent support. In the 1960s, the United States backed Gen. Ayub Khan in our own Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union. When Gen. Zia-ul-Haq ran Pakistan in the 1980s, the United States used Pakistan to funnel military aid to the fundamentalist mujahedeen who were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. And finally, there was Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who received massive U.S. military aid in return for fighting the Taliban - an offshoot of the mujahedeen we once supported.
In all of this, Pakistani society has been the loser. Massive amounts of U.S. military aid have expanded the power of Pakistan's military at the expense of civilian institutions. For example, the Pakistani economy is currently reeling under 12-hour power blackouts. President Zardari may suffer for this, but it was U.S.-backed dictator Musharraf who deserves the blame for not paying attention to Pakistan's basic infrastructure needs.
From power blackouts to loss of control in the Swat Valley, average Pakistanis are paying a heavy price for decades of on-and-off U.S.-backed military dictatorship. And the U.S. policy of drone missile attacks will not provide answers. Instead, we should help Pakistanis strengthen their civilian institutions, address the humanitarian crisis in Swat and cease our military-first approach.
- Posted in
4 Comments so far
Show All"While the United States may not be responsible for the rise of Pakistan's past military dictators,"
Ok ... that clears it up. We fed the beast, fattened it, manipulated it, armed it to the brim with lethal weapons, funded it and offered overt and covert support ..... but we are not responsible for how it turns out. its the deadbeat dad syndrome and we excel at it.
"In light of this, it is fairly clear that the idea of the Taliban somehow controlling Pakistan's 172 million people is absurd."
Well, Pakistan has been controlled by an Army of half a million soldiers all these years. A group of fanatical jihadists can easily do the same.
The only way we can help Pakistan's fledgling democracy and long-suffering people is to stop supporting the Pakistani Military and ISI.
Is Zadari getting his 10%? That's what counts.
Deepa
This article tries to portray US (in its relationship with Pakistan) like the Roman god Janus, the two-face god. Janus was characterized by the blending of maleficent and beneficent.
The history of the US and its foreign policy reveals its actions to further its selfish interests at the expense of democracy, freedom and human rights.
The following is part of a transcript of the speech given by Malalai Joya, member of the Afghan Parliament, given at the University of Los Angeles on April 10, 2007:
"The US government removed the ultra-reactionary and brutal regime of Taliban, but instead of relying on Afghan people, pushed us from the frying pan into the fire and selected its friends from among the most dirty and infamous criminals of the “Northern Alliance”, which is made up of the sworn enemies of democracy and human rights, and are as dark-minded, evil, and cruel as the Taliban.
The Western media talks about democracy and the liberation of Afghanistan, but the US and its allies are engaged in the warlordization, criminalization and drug-lordization of our wounded land.
Today the Northern alliance leaders are the key power holders and our people are hostage in the hands of these ruthless gangs of killers. Many of them are responsible for butchering tens of thousands of innocent people in the past 2 decades but are in power and hold key positions in the government."
There are a number of articles on "US and NATO in formal talks with some of the Taliban leaders." Musharaf supported Taliban. Read Charlie Rose interview with Musharaf, when the latter visited the US. Now even Musharaf is blaming the present democratically elected Pakistan government that it is in collusion with Taliban. US never questioned of Musharaf's continuous close relationship with Taliban and al-Qaeda, when he was ruling Pakistan. It always supported him (including the US and western media). The moment democratically elected government has come into power, US and the west have suddenly started seeing terrorists and Taliban in Pakistan and their relationship. This is only to destabilize the democracy in Pakistan, because it is not beneficial to US and Europe.
The number of innocent people killed by the US and the NATO in Pakistan and Afghanistan prove that people in those countries are never the object of their policies and actions.
I have no disagreement with the downside of US policies in regard to Pakistan, or indeed in Pakistan's no small contribution to its own problems. But I seriously disagree that Pakistan is not going to be taken over by the Taliban. You just have to read the Pakistani papers to know what is going on (try Dawn or The Daily Times). The causes of Pakistan's predicament are completely irrelevant. Pakistan and the US have much to learn from it, but it does nothing to avert the very real threat that Pakistan faces today.
The government has practically handed over Malakand and Swat to the militants. By signing into law the rule of Sharia, they have ceded control. At any other time in the past this may have worked (the people want it), but what we are going to see is Maulana Sufi (the cleric who negotiated the agreement) become irrelevant, as he always has been, and his son-in-law, Maulana Fazlur Rehman (the "Radio Mullah") take control. And with him will come the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban.
There weren;t that many of the Taliban in Swat. But in a short span of time they have almost complete control over the area. It doesn't matter how few there are. A Kalashnikov and brutal beheadings for minor sins is enough to bring the ordinary people down to their knees. And an ineefective government sits and watches. Swat borders Punjab. The Talibs are at the gates of Islamabad. Wake up and understand that Pakistan is slipping into its most severe crisis, with neither the military nor the civilian government able to staunch this tide. With one concession after another to the Taliban, in an effort to buy peace, Pakistan is slowly slipping into an ungovernable mess.
Please stop talking about failed US policies. They are immaterial and may satisfy the ordinary reader of these pages, but they are unimportant. At risk is a major nation state on the brink of disaster.
Ratnam