Musharraf’s “Awkward Balancing Act”
August 27, 2006, 6:12 pm |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
By Andrew L. Jaffee
The Washington Post warns of “Pakistan’s Awkward Balancing Act on Islamic Militant Groups.” But if one looks closely at the actions of Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, it is clear that he has made his choice to side with the West, there’s no going back, and he is beyond the pale of reconciliation with his country’s lunatic Islamists. The scale has tipped to one side. It is time for Musharraf to explicitly say so and do so, as he’ll never appease Pakistan’s radicals. Here’s an excerpt from the Post:
The basic problem for Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is that he is trying to please two irreconcilable groups. Abroad, the leader of this impoverished Muslim country is frantically competing with arch-rival India, a predominantly Hindu country, for American political approval and economic ties. To that end, he has worked hard to prove himself as a staunch anti-terrorism ally.
But at home, where he hopes to win election in 2007 after eight years as a self-appointed military ruler, Musharraf needs to appease Pakistan’s Islamic parties to counter strong opposition from its secular ones. He also needs to keep alive the Kashmiri and Taliban insurgencies on Pakistan’s borders to counter fears within military ranks that India, which has developed close ties with the Kabul government, is pressuring its smaller rival on two flanks.
There’s no way for Musharraf to “please” the Islamists. Let me explain point by point:
- The Islamists tried to assassinate Musharraf twice in the short span of 11 days in December 2003. He survived one attack by a few seconds. Any idea how one would reconcile with one’s own assassins?
- Pakistan and Israel’s foreign ministers met for the first time in Istanbul in September 2005 — a prelude to eventual full diplomatic relations. Musharraf initiated the new dialog. The Islamists surely see this move as an ultimate betrayal. Meeting with the Little Satan?
- Don’t forget that Israel has forged strong strategic ties with India, Pakistan’s arch rival.
- Musharraf has sought to break the ice between his country and India, the world’s largest democracy, and chock full of free-thinking, entrepreneurial apostate Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians. Relations between the two nuclear rivals are better than they’ve ever been since they gained independence from Britain. The Islamists are surely angered by Musharraf’s diplomacy. One only need look at the many Islamist terrorist atrocities wrought against India.
- On On September 17, 2005 Musharraf spoke before the American Jewish Congress. Again, another slap in the face of the Islamic radicals.
- Pakistani intelligence helped Britain thwart a plan to bomb airliners this month.
- There is evidence that Pakistan might not be quite as radical as the politically-correct, hand-wringers of doom claim: “New research is calling into question the prevalence and increasing popularity of religious schooling in Pakistan, with survey data that show previous estimates of enrollment in Islamic madrassas to be far lower than widely reported.”
- Finally, Musharraf’s military, probably his strongest power base, has specifically targeted and killed scores of Islamists and other militants in his own country. Just this week, Pakistan’s military offed one of the country’s major terrorist leaders, Sardar Akbar Bugti (”Bugti, the Sardar or chief of more than 200,000 Bugti tribesmen, was killed along with more than 35 of his followers when the Pakistan Air Force bombed his hideout in the Bambore mountain range in the Marri tribal area.”).
So instead of indulging in an “awkward balancing act,” President Musharraf needs to lay his cards on the table, shut down Pakistan’s virulent Islamist madrassas, crack down on militants, and move the country out of the religious Stone Age into a modern, civilized society. To think that Musharraf could find a rapprochement with radical Islam is like believing Neville Chamberlain’s claim of “peace in our time” in 1938 — a worthless peace of paper signed with Hitler. You know what happened next.
Related: Arab/Muslim World, War Against Islamo-fascism, Pakistan, Terrorist Groups
August 27th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Musharraf’s relunctance to come out as an open pro-West leader rests in the fear that his countrymen will reject him. Open public riots would be an excuse for rebellion within the ranks of the army. Assuredly that would result in a pro-Islamist government and the lopping of Musharraf’s head.
August 27th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Do you really think it would be that bad? He survived opening relations with Israel, knocking off Tabliban, the cricket “crisis,” the U.S. airstrike aimed at killing al-Qaeda’s #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Registration and Regulation Ordinance of 2002, comments about Islamists keeping their long beards to themselves, etc.
Musharraf’s got a pretty good track record of being a survivor. Why not go all the way?
There’s not gonna be an in-between with the Islamists. Either you survive or have your throat slit.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Great analysis. For Pakistan to become a prosperous nation and enjoy internal as well as external security, it’s really important to root out all these organisations which support terror. However, you can’t ignore that one of Pakistan’s most sensitive issues at home is Kashmir and in the past Pakistan has supported militant efforts against India in Kashmir and although I don’t support terrorism in any form, I do think that all people should have a right to govern themselves and an armed resistance against an occupying force under such circumstances is legitimate (think IRA). Unfortunately these militant groups have grown too powerful and their leadership has used their influences to spread radicalism, commit terrorism at home and overseas, actively support secretarian violence, and collaborate with other international terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. Its time for Pakistan to change the strategies from the past and take steps for these groups to be completely disbanded. At the same time, maybe the US and EU can use its influence with India to force it to cooperate on the Kashmir issue, which is the underlying cause of all these problems and the main reason for the support these radical groups have. Pakistani people are not radical, are peaceful and pride them on their culture and hospitality. Once the Kashmir issue is settled there would be no public support existing for any of these groups that use Kashmir as a cover while pursuing their own radical interests and spreading terror.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Unfortunately, Kashmir is a chess board, and the militants sponsored by India and Pakistan are the proxy chess pieces. Perhaps with warming Indo-Pakistani relations, there can be a peaceful solution. But it will be difficult as the terrorists groups have gained too much power, as you noted, and their momentum will be difficult to restrain. The genie has been let out of the bottle.