But that is not the problem, the real problem for the US with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, suspending the constitutions and therefore civil liberties is that he could not avoid the negative publicity associated with it, and became more of a liability than an asset.
The first reaction from the state department was regret, but affirmation of the strong relationship and continuation of aid, then to demands of new elections, and this is only day two of Musharraf’s adventure.
The latest news speak of hundreds of arrests, and shutting down of all independent media, all of this seems to be playing on US news networks, much to the discomfort of the White House.
Now let's make it clear, I have a stake in what goes on in Pakistan because half of all Americans I meet think I'm actually Pakistilian.
Musharraf knows that some extent he actually could get away with some draconian measures, as far as the US reaction is concerned. He knows that the US has no other allies but him in the nuclear power that is deemed a “front line in the war on terror.” Benazir Bhutto, the recently returned exiled leader has even distanced her self from the US in her effort to position as the anti-Musharraf, in fact, the more democratic a choice the next leader is, the least likely he or she to be friendly to the US.
But the dictator may have overplayed his hand; unlike his more more savvy counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, Musharraf snapped, he reacted in above-the-threshold steps that attracted media attention from all over the world, kind of like those dummies in Myanmar. And despite the little leverage it has over him, the US will soon find itself having to press Musharraf on his latest actions. But given the US's options such confrontation would be cosmetic at best, so for those of you about to be appalled, no worries, it's not the first time the US backs a dictator, at least this one is better than many.
It got to the point that a criminal like Bush could claim the moral high grounds, and demand that the president of another sovereign nation to hold election –ones that are sure to drive him out of office nonetheless-, and drop his military uniform, but it is the fault of the likes of Musharraf who chose to ally themselves with Bush against their own people.
Egypt’s dictator, for example, one of the US’s main allies, had had the country’s constitution suspended since his arrival to power nearly 27 years ago, his police forces assault and beat protesters on a regular basis, his jails are filled with activists and journalists without trials, or with show trials at best. But his moves are calculated; while they enrage the Egyptian people, they are below the threshold needed to become CNN’s sensational story of three days.
Saudi Arabia, similarly, continues to crack down on political descent and prevent its citizens, especially women, not to mention its non-citizen immigrants from basic rights, but continues to fly under the radar with its media savvy and resources, and by telling the US that those being oppressed are the people who view the US least favorably any way, in addition to the fact that the US is not exactly concerned, as long as the situation does not become a liability with all the media attention.
Israel, on the other hand, is the most savvy among America’s criminal allies, some how it’s managing to maintain an occupation of an entire people, enforce an apartheid-like regime, brutalize and entire population with heaviest, most advances weaponry in the world, while appearing as the victim at the same time.
Of course it helps that the media in the US is has enough people who selectively ignore news stories damning of Israel, but Israel itself knows how to make their job easy; proportionate responses and keeping it below the threshold are by no means Israel’s MO, but they know how to spin their stories, and more importantly, they know how to time their most aggressive actions. It’s military officers receive training in US mass media and news cycles, it’s population is so indoctrinated with the military’s narrative, that a news reporter can interview to random individuals in the street and they will give the same soundbites.
During the California wild fires of last month, Israel launched its most violent attack against Gaza in many months, and it seems to have planned, and gotten Washington’s OK for a major ground assault against the strip that “it does not occupy,” so wait until the next major event that dominates the news media for them to launch it, if no Hurricane or a major earthquake hit or a new sex tape is released of Paris Hilton sometime between now and the primaries time, that that is probably the zero hour.
Perhaps Musharraf should enlist in a PR course at the Israeli embassy.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Pakistan's Musharraf: US Ally Goes Too Far
By
Fayyad
KABOBegories: american politics, Egypt, Fayyad, israel, Pakistan, politics, Saudi Arabia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)









3 comments:
thanks fayyad, you stole the words right out of my mouth. the parallels between America's closest allies in the region are remarkable. in fact, i vote we put musharraf up on the skewer instead rumsfeld, whose ship has sailed. anyone with me?
a un-educated 200 level poly-sci paper at best.
And once Musharaff is "put on the skewer", this will prevent Pakistan from disintegrating without a united and secular army?
I'd say you people are living in a fantasy, if only you weren't so consistent. Anyone even remotely allied to American foreign policy is a traitor and a criminal. Anyone "resisting" American "imperialism" is noble.
Moreover, it's not like you actually understand what is going on. Talk to some of your Paki friends, if you have any.
The Paki Supreme Court released 60 Islamist terrorists detained by the Army in the wake of the Red Mosque siege. The Judiciary is using the Islamists as a pawn to undermine the army (the only institution holding the country together).
Without the Army, Pakistan will break apart, and the resultant turmoil will not simply result in massive killing, but will ensure an enormous base of operation for Islamist radicals, inviting invasion by the Americans, Indians and possibly the use of nuclear weapons to contain the violence.
As in other secular Muslim states, the Army is ultimately the only guarantor of the state's survival. Every Pakistani government has been overthrown by the Army since the nation's founding, similar to Turkey. The situation now is not somehow unusual than in the past, except that some city-dwelling secularists have joined Islamists in challenging the authority of the Army to impose order.
These secularists - like Bhutto - are playing with fire. They cannot ensure the survival of the state in the face of Islamist attack and tribal sectarianism. They are hoping to force Musharaff down and take control of the Army before the nation implodes, but they have no record of governance, and the Army is not about to relinquish the state to the hands of politicians who have spent more time abroad than at home.
It is no wonder that while the US does not like what Musharaff is doing, it is supporting him. The alternative is to witness an implosion of the country that would make Iraq look like paradise.
When Bush invaded Iraq, you preferred regional stability to democracy, arguing against the invasion. Now, you argue for democracy instead of stability. Iraq should have taught us all that there IS no democracy without stability.
As the Palestinians have taught us, stability requires a monopoly on force. Ten different factions will not make peace, when each one has a veto through violence.
The Pakistani army is the monopoly on force required to achieve stability. Once stability is achieved, THEN you should push for democracy, not the reverse. Part-time activists are always energized at the worst time and for the wrong reasons.
Post a Comment