Posted on 11/04/2007 6:24:57 PM PST by blam
Pakistan facing aid cuts by West
By Isambard Wilkinson and Damien McElroy in Islamabad
Last Updated: 1:40am GMT 05/11/2007
America and Britain threatened to cut billions of pounds worth of aid to Pakistan last night as President Pervez Musharraf arrested hundreds of opponents after imposing a state of emergency.
The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said Washington would "review" its aid after the military ruler suspended the constitution.
Gen Pervez Musharraf cited terrorist attacks as justification for his action
Gen Musharraf, a key ally in the US-led war on terror, invoked emergency powers on Saturday to stifle challenges to his eight-year rule.
After ousting Pakistan's chief justice, Gen Musharraf yesterday had 500 politicians and human rights workers arrested. America has financed his regime with at least £5.5 billion since 2001 when the general aligned with the West after the September 11 attacks.
Following a tame US response on Saturday, Ms Rice expressed America's "disappointment".
She urged Gen Musharraf to call elections and said the money that has propped him up could as easily be withdrawn. "We are going to have to review the situation with aid," said Ms Rice.
A Foreign Office spokesman said Britain would review aid worth £480 million to Gen Musharraf over the next three years.
The general cited terrorist attacks and Supreme Court obstruction as justification for his action.
That is about the stupides thing I ever heard. We need to support him and get Osama.
I thought this guy was on our side. Is he not being sufficiently politically correct?
The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said Washington would "review" its aid after the military ruler suspended the constitution.
How long does it take for the State Department and all interested agencies to complete a "review?" Just might take just as long as Musharraf needs it to take.
This is ridiculous!
I think this threat of a cutoff is “pro forma”. Hopefully, we will also get a chance to officially “deplore” it when he rounds up a bunch of Islamists and buries them with backhoes.
Of course we are a forgiving nation, so when he and Bhutto end the martial law, firmly entrenched in power with their mutual enemies smitten, we will be glad to welcome their return to the democratic nations. Maybe even give them some extra aid to help them restore democratic values and stuff.
We did sort of the same thing with Mexico in 1968, after a whole bunch of violent agitators disappeared down there.
It is my gut feeling that our national leadership strongly supports Musharraf in his current actions — behind the scenes.
Consider the alternative, in this very imperfect part of this world of ours. And, I must remind myself of the old truism in International affairs:
“The enemy of my enemy IS my friend !”
I rest my case.
If Musharraf is overtaken then the radical Muslims will have nukes all ready to go. I hope we know what we are doing here. I though this guy was on our side ? Can we really be supporting him behind the scenes?
Bad idea. The State Dept needs to realize the kind of country they’re dealing with: an unstable ME nation, not a civilized Western one. Democracy doesn’t work all nice and clean over there; nutjob terrorist sympathizers could easily get elected and screw things over. If martial law is what it takes to prevent that, so be it. This isn’t about getting a democracy in place over there, it’s about stopping the Islamofascists.
A partial list of people who have, at one time or another, been "on our side": Stalin, the South African Apartheid regime, Batista, Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, Mobutu, Saddam.
Is he not being sufficiently politically correct?
Mass arrests of political opponents is not political incorrectness. It is tyranny.Military rule is not political incorrectness. Shutting down all means of communication and all media is not political incorrectness.
Yes, Pakistan is an ally, and yes, we need their help. It would be irresponsible to push them away But it would be wrong not to push them as hard as we can in the direction of liberty and democracy. If we support the spread of democracy everywhere except amongst our authoritarian allies, we look like - and are -- liars.
Bingo.
Pakistan has a long history of unstable governments, military coups, and a hit-or-mss (mostly miss) respect for liberty. What I hope comes out of this crisis -- and what was developing even before the state of emergency, before the attempt on Bhutto's life -- is a realization that the chaotic multiparty politics have boiled down to two sides: Islamofascists and everyone else.
Musharraf and Bhutto have to form a marriage of convenience until they can defeat Al Qaeda once and for all; then they can resume hashing out their (significant, but small by comparison) differences with each other by peaceful, democratic means. It's not unlike the truce between the Communists and Nationalists in China when they both fought the Japanese, or the US and the USSR when they both fought the Nazis.
That's what it's about for us. We can't afford to ignore what it's about for Pakistanis.
We need Pakistan, not Musharraf. If Musharraf becomes heavy-handed enough that the Pakistanis overthrow him, they might reject us along with him. We cannot afford that. If we blindly support Musharraf, then we're in a dodgy position if Bhutto's party wins the next election, if there is a next election.
Diplomacy isn't a chess game -- it's nowhere near that simple.
Stopping the Islamofascists will have good results for us and the Pakistanis. Once they’re gone, then they CAN have a democracy. A democracy without the fear of getting an extremist elected. The first step is to stop AQ and the Taliban, THEN worry about a democracy.
Agree. But do it the right way. In past conflicts, Nazis squared off against communists, and we joined forces with the communists. Dictators squared off against communists, and we joined forces with the dictators. We encouraged the Reds in Germany in the 40s. We sponsored the Jihadis in Afghanistan in the 80s. We propped up Marcos and then dumped his sorry ass. If we'd taken a smarter approach than blindly supporting Batista, we might have never gotten Castro.
When will we begin to learn from experience?
We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. "Beat the communists, and then worry about democracy." That was the Cold War Mantra, and it often ended in disaster. The world isn't made up of us, folks who love us, and folks who hate us -- most of the world is made up of folks who want to live their lives, aren't very involved in politics, and just want to be left alone to do what they do.
Those people are desperately thirsting for a limited government that mostly just leaves them the hell alone. And we will not win them over by supporting authoritarian regimes. When the US promises "democracy" and props up a dictator, we are hypocrites. It is a charade not difficult to see through.
We cannot expect less from our enemies than we expect from our allies. I' not overreacting to Musharraf's declaration,but if it stands for long, I have serious issues with it. You cannot defeat tyranny by emulating or sponsoring it.
We walk a thin line, I guess.
Everywhere, all the time.
I think stopping the money, for right now, is the smartest thing I have ever seen.
Send troops, UAV’s, whatever it takes to help, but don’t give the money to the Al Queda.
In time of revolt, that should be the first line of defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.