Pakistan: Anti-Fundamentalist Measures Have Little Bite

Summary

Sandwiched between U.S. demands and dangers within his own country, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is announcing bold initiatives to counter fundamentalism but is falling short in their execution. If Musharraf is skimping on political actions, it may not bode well for his cooperation against extremist elements in Pakistan.

Analysis

Pakistan's Supreme Court June 24 reversed its own ruling in 1999 that ordered the government to cease charging interest on bank transactions on the grounds that such a practice was un-Islamic. The reversal came just six days ahead of a deadline set by the Supreme Court for Pakistan's financial institutions to adopt the Islamic system of banking.

The court has supported President Pervez Musharraf, and its recent decision likely was done at the president's behest. Trapped between the demands of the United States on the one side and both the danger of militant Islamists and public appeal of Pakistan's fundamentalist political parties on the other, Musharraf still continues to play both sides of the fence. The ruling appears to be a dramatic political move against fundamentalist elements, but like many similar initiatives taken by the government is more style than substance.

Following the earlier order by the Islamic bench of Pakistan's Supreme Court to abolish interest charges, many financial institutions warned the government that the new system was not viable, and some foreign banks hinted they might have to shut down their operations in the country.

But the recent ruling does not reject Islamic banking, it just postpones it. The case will now be sent back to the Federal Shariat Court to start fresh hearings. This may take several more years, giving the government some breathing space to carry on with its economic policies.

Another example of what at first appears to be a strong anti-fundamentalist move is last week's government ordinance on the regulation and registration of private Islamic schools, known as madrassas. Many of these schools served as recruiting grounds for Pakistan's fundamentalist parties, and even militant groups such as the Taliban and al Qaeda. The ordinance introduces some much-needed curriculum reform, as well as limits on the age and nationality of students that attend the schools.

But the problem is that the law is not compulsory. The only penalty for not registering a madrassa is that it will not be eligible to receive any government funding, according to Pakistani daily The News. The paper reported that most of the schools hardly receive any government funding in the first place.

The government June 23 also banned anyone without a university degree from running in the upcoming general election for the national or provincial assemblies. The announcement was a direct challenge to fundamentalist political parties that are a significant factor in Pakistan's internal politics.

But here again, the sentiment counts more than the reality. For all practical purposes, Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Musharraf barely involves the federal bureaucracy -- let alone the National Assembly -- in decision-making as it is.

Musharraf's political maneuvering raises security questions. If he is making only half-hearted political reforms, is he doing the same regarding cooperation against al Qaeda? His government is helping U.S. soldiers operate in western Pakistan and FBI agents operate in the major cities. Dozens of extremists were arrested in Lahore June 23, according to The News. But the question is whether those arrested were key operatives or just foot soldiers. Given Musharraf's record on his political initiatives, the outlook for the United States is not good.

If he is making only half-hearted political reforms, is he doing the same regarding cooperation against al Qaeda?

A tough question no one in Washington seems to be asking.

Given Musharraf's record on his political initiatives, the outlook for the United States is not good.

Musharraf has been and still is still a ChiCom and Taliban 'homie'. His recent moves are as phoney and transparent as Yassir Arafat's "arresting Hamas leaders" charade.

This has been my take on him, since January.

I don't remember the guy's name or his title -- he was someone pretty far up the heirarchy in Pakistan -- but he was televised saying Pakistan must be seen to be supporting the Americans.

I would like to believe this war on terror has purpose, reason, and a little fortitude behind it, but have major doubts. If the administration knows what Stratfor (and everybody else) knows about Mush, (they do) why is Tommy Franks singing praises about Mushy's "co-operation"? Why give Pakistan time? I don't get it.

It is certainly frustrating but i have to believe that the highest levels of the US govt have no illusions about the threat posed by pakistan, saudi and the rest of the axis of evil. But this is a result of our war on terror; terror is a tactic and we have refused to call the states that have declared war on us, instead choosing to focus on non-state entities like al-qaeda and believing that Osama is not a tool of the Saudis in their anti-american campaign.

I have come to disbelieve the fiction of Osama's estrangement from the Saudis; the revocation of his passport is just window dressing. Based on the example and success of Pakistan's proxy war conducted against India in Kashmir, I bleieve the Saudis have been conducting their proxy war against the US through entities like al-qaeda and through the imams in their mosques, who surreptitously infiltrate their host societies under the rubric of religion while being, IMO, assets of the Saudi Intelligence Services.

The worldview of America is tainted by the fact that there are incredible megadeals in the pipelines with the Saudis; a recent report had the details of multiBillion deals for new natural gas resources with ExxonMobil among others right in the midst. And by not confronting Islam as a radical ideology out for world domination, we are permitting its fiction of religion to spread around the world.

3000+ Americans Dead. Yes, it's great we've liberated Afghanistan, but the true source, financiers and implementers of this ideology, SaudiArabia and Pakistan are untouched. An amazingly restrained response so far, that shows how succesful a strategy of proxy war can be.

I would've thought after 3000+ dead Americans, we'd be at a Pearl Harbor scenario; instead we seem to be more in a 1932 scenario - unwilling to confront our true enemies for economic reasons, the same way Wall Street's major investments in Germany wilfully blinded us to their true danger.

Why give Pakistan time? I don't get it.

Nor do I. Al Qaida and Taliban are regrouping there. Mush has sweet-talked, threatened and blackmailed to buy time, get India off its back and managed to keep our forces at bay. Even the leftist media are now musing over Musharraf's duplicity. It looks like India has been persuaded or pressured to back off and give Musharraf more time. Meanwhile, having savored the successes of nuclear blackmail, Pakistan is acquiring longer range missles. The ChiComs will gladly oblige with the technology stolen from us. Yes, why give them time?

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.