Military rule will not quell Pakistan’s Islamists

The Financial Times ^ | November 15 2007 | Robert Templer

[sukhoi-30mki]

Military rule will not quell Pakistan’s Islamists By Robert Templer

Published: November 15 2007 18:50 | Last updated: November 15 2007 18:50

However the tempestuous politics of Pakistan play out, one thing is certain. General Pervez Musharraf can no longer claim any legitimacy to lead his country. His approval rating is just over 20 per cent, most Pakistanis do not want him to be president again and the Supreme Court was expected to declare his candidacy illegal before he threw the judges out. He may be able to rig elections due in the new year but he and his regime will fail to win popular support.

That is a problem for Pakistan’s security. As the past eight years have shown, Gen Musharraf will not dismantle jihadi infrastructure nor will he allow moderate political parties to push back against Islamists in the political arena. The military has backed the religious right for decades; those Gen Musharraf really fears are the moderates he has locked up since imposing martial law on November 3.

While claiming to fight extremism, the military was using its forces in Baluchistan to try to deny the anti-Taliban, secular Baluch their constitutional rights. A record of failure along the border with Afghanistan in countering the Taliban has undercut support for the military nationwide. In a telling sign, most soldiers do not wear uniforms outside barracks.

Gen Musharraf’s supporters abroad defend him by raising the spectre of something worse but their apocalyptic scenarios of al-Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons or the country melting down are extremely unlikely, and dangerous in themselves. Focusing on what has little chance of happening has blocked serious thought about what comes after the general. What is needed is a plan for Pakistan after Gen Musharraf.

First, democracy is not only more acceptable in principle than military rule, but would reduce the influence of Islamists significantly. In any free elections, moderate secular parties would win about 70 per cent of the vote. Small nationalist parties might get another 20 per cent but the Islamist parties would win less than 10 per cent. Even when the military rigged the 2002 poll in their favour the Islamists only won 11.3 per cent, and they would have less support today because of their mismanagement in Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province.

Second, democracy would help in reducing violent extremism. Secular parties have been excluded from the tribal areas, which have been increasingly overrun by jihadis. Bringing these areas into the full political system would allow the parties to compete with the Islamists. This is the only way to recover ground in places, such as the Swat valley, where secular parties dominated before the military stifled them. Democratic parties have a better record of co-operating on counter-terrorism than the military; it was after all Gen Musharraf who throttled a joint US-Pakistan effort to hunt down Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s. Democratic rulers are also more likely to improve ties with India than the military, which launched wars and Islamist proxies against Pakistan’s neighbour.

Third, democratic parties may have been corrupt but they were far less greedy than the military. Ayesha Siddiqa’s book, Military Inc, details the way Gen Musharraf’s armed forces have become an omnivorous, unfettered force that is stifling business. The upper ranks of Pakistani state-run enterprises are stuffed with unqualified military officers, while the able look for jobs overseas. The way to tackle corruption is accountability, transparency and effective rule of law; the military, which regards itself as above all scrutiny, will never deliver these.

Any effective democracy will need to be backed with western aid and market access. Over the past 60 years, the US has overfed the military and starved democratic governments, giving them less than half the aid on average. Since 2001, only 10 per cent of the more than $10bn in aid has gone to development or humanitarian help. Far more must go to education, healthcare and building institutions.

Military help should not end but US aid could be more effective. More than high-technology weapons, Pakistan needs better policing and counter-insurgency forces trained to do more than fight Indian tanks on the Punjabi plains. There is no purely military solution to the Islamist insurgency or to nationalist violence in Baluchistan. We need political solutions to conflicts and improved long-term security.

None of this will be easy to implement but it offers more hope than more of the same. Pakistan needs change. It can only begin when Gen Musharraf goes and democracy returns.

The writer is director of the Asia programme at the International Crisis Group

[sukhoi-30mki]

At last,somebody has showed what the Pakistani army & it’s Chief are really about.

[listenhillary]

Democracy returns and the Jihadists sweep into power with 60% of the vote and now have nuclear weapons, how cool is that!

Better buy more oil stocks on the way home today. Even Biden made a point of this in the debate last night.

[sukhoi-30mki]

That’s precisely the point this author wants to refute-there is no jihadi or Islamic party in Pakistan which has popularity beyond 15% of the electorate & all the Islamists are fragmented in Pakistan’s restive areas like Balochistan,the NWFP & Kashmir.

If you want Jihadis to get their hands on nukes-well we need to do nothing & allow the military to stay in power or behind the curtains-which will ensure Pakistan blows up.& then NukeMart will really be open & more than one jihadi will get his own nuke.

[listenhillary]

You had better be sure he is right is all that I’m saying.

[listenhillary]

International Crisis Group

“Foundation and private sector donors include:

The Atlantic Philanthropies
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Ford Foundation e.g.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
The Henry Luce Foundation, Inc.
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The John Merck Fund
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Open Society Institute
Ploughshares Fund
Sigrid Rausing Trust
Sasakawa Peace Foundation
the Sarlo Foundation of the Jewish Community Endowment Fund
United States Institute of Peace
Fundacão Oriente.”

U.S. Board Members

Morton Abramowitz, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Kenneth Adelman, Former U.S. Ambassador and Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former U.S. National Security Advisor to the President
—>Wesley Clark, Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander
Stanley Fischer,Vice-Chairman, Citigroup Inc. and former First Deputy Managing Director of International Monetary Fund
Carla Hills, Former U.S. Secretary of Housing; former U.S. Trade Representative
Swanee Hunt, Founder and Chair of Women Waging Peace; former U.S. Ambassador to Austria
Elliott F. Kulick, Chairman, Pegasus International
Joanne Leedom-Ackerman, Novelist and journalist
Douglas Schoen, Founding Partner of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates
—>George Soros, Chairman, Open Society Institute
William O. Taylor, Chairman Emeritus, The Boston Globe

[sukhoi-30mki]

I’ve heard it from lots of others-including Pakistani journalists as well.

& even if he is wrong-what would you prefer??A single large Jihadi Nuke-state or a couple of fragmented “states” all with nukes???I don’t prefer either- but My point is that the latter is more likely to come about in the longterm if the Army continues to run the show.

[listenhillary]

Why now? What has made the situation unstable in the last couple of months?

Are there any connections to al-queda getting it’s rear kicked?

[Edit35]

If you want Jihadis to get their hands on nukes-well we need to do nothing & allow the military to stay in power...

And your proposal is .......

[sukhoi-30mki]

What do you mean right now???If you mean the situation as a whole-it’s the result of trying to keep everyone satisfied.Uncle Sam by handing over a few AQ lowlifes,the jihadis satisfied by keeping the India/Afghan terror tap running.....This situation was sure to come about given the way things have been going since Sept 11,2001 with insurgencies in the frontier provinces,Balochistan & the Army’s own terror proteges taking on their mentors.The catylst(s) were Musharraf’s agreement with Bhutto to share power as well as Nawaz Sharif’s abortive visit.Benazir knew Musharraf was in trouble,while Sharif was essentially being made into a martyr & upped her stakes putting Musharraf into a bind-leading to the current mess.

[sukhoi-30mki]

I really don’t have much of a proposal-other than changing the very nature of Pakistan.It’s an Army with a State,not a State with an Army.You can’t do that with the Army in the driver’s seat right??Any alternatives??

[airborne]

"-Democracy returns and the Jihadists sweep into power with 60% of the vote and now have nuclear weapons, how cool is that!-"

In any free elections, moderate secular parties would win about 70 per cent of the vote. Small nationalist parties might get another 20 per cent but the Islamist parties would win less than 10 per cent. Even when the military rigged the 2002 poll in their favour the Islamists only won 11.3 per cent, and they would have less support today because of their mismanagement in Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province.

Apparently not, if the writer is correct.

[listenhillary]

It seems to correlate with the timing of al-queda getting whacked pretty seriously and a change in tactics and location by al-queda or their allies.

I’m not claiming to be an expert, just asking questions.

[listenhillary]

The writers is funded by a group with Wesley Clarke and George Soros on their board. That makes one suspicious of their motives if their past actions are considered.

[airborne]

But the statistics given in the article, is accurate, give credence to the idea that we need to support the coming free elections.

Just please, don’t send Jimmy Carter to monitor things!

[Edit35]

Over the past 60 years, the US has overfed the military and starved democratic governments, giving them less than half the aid on average.

Pragmatically speaking, we should give a lot of leeway to any quasi-military regime who helps the US fight the murdering Jihadists, and supports the West in its effort to eradicate alQaeda.

Just as the Shah of Iran was a better option, so would a good West-supporting leader (quasi dictator) be a better option in today's world.

Some countries are not ready for a full blown democracy, sad to say.

Forcing it upon them would only make matters worse.

Lastly, Pakistan has a strong agreement with the US and Britain to allow US forces to take control of their nukes should the country fall into complete anarchy.

Is that agreement 100% ironclad?

Well, who knows. But it is a good sign that we will be able to prevent the worst from happening.

[Flintlock]

Sorry, boys and girls.
It looks like it’s either Mushey—or the Jihadists.
What fun.
Sooooo...........take your pick.

[G8 Diplomat]

Pakistan ۋﮧ۱م

FReepmail if you want on or off

[G8 Diplomat]

In any free elections, moderate secular parties would win about 70 per cent of the vote.

Since Pakistan has never HAD free elections, how can you prove this point? Look at Iran--their moderate party, the Reformists, who tried to improve ties with America did win one election. But look who won the last one. Democracy isn't safe in Muslim nations, especially with nukes. In fact, in Muslim nations is there such thing as a secular party? Turkey is the only nation in the ME that is headed in a more secular, non-religious direction in its government. How do we know Pakistan is full of secularists who would run?

[G8 Diplomat]

oh yeah, another thing: Switching to democracy won’t automatcially stop the violence. Whether or not the army rules or elected politicians sit around debating, there are still AQ nuts blowing stuff up out there. It’s not the type of government that puts an end to it, it’s the willingness of the people in charge. If we could get someone, whether military or civilian, who is FULLY committed to fighting the Islamists to run Pakistan, that would be ideal. I hope the author is right about moderate parties winning such a high percentage of the vote, for the sake of Pakistan.