posted by Muqtedar Khan @ 7:46 PM
21 comments
Arab-Israeli Politics POSC 377
This course explores the politics of the Middle East with particular focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Identity and Politics in the region, the role of Islam and the U.S. in the region's politics. Fall 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
About Me
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
- Location: United States
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- When Muslims Saved Jews "Albania was the only coun...
- Controversy II The second controversy will focus...
- "America risks God's Wrath"
- A division of Jerusalem Eric Joseph found this s...
- What do you make of this story in the Jerusalem Po...
- President Ahmedinajad's Speech at Columbia See the...
21 Comments:
I am certainly no expert on Pakistan, but it seems to me that Musharraf is simply another tool in the long line of dictators, authoritarians, and failures that the U.S. supports when the need calls for it.
I am wary of lines like "only minimally subverting democracy." As soon as the United States needs an ally, they'll go for whoever is willing and turn a blind eye to all else that the country and its leader will do. Simply look at the U.S.'s relations with Latin America and, occasionally, other parts of the world to see what lengths of horror we will "tolerate."
The only reason that the U.S. is "disturbed" (as the adminstration says) by what is going on in Pakistan is because Musharraf is becoming less and less useful and supporting him so greatly is starting to backfire. Fortunately for Musharraf, while the U.S. has a very "What have you done for me lately?" attitude, it is historically slow to start pulling funds and support. If he can end this political chaos in Pakistan (or turn over some sort of al-Queda leader soon), the U.S. will blink, shake its head, and then go on with business as usual.
What does this mean in the larger Middle Eastern picture? SImply what I said above: the United States cannot be trusted. In the Janus-face of the American government, one side speaks of democracy, freedom, and civil rights for all. From the other mouth it offers support and money and military assistance to madmen and criticizes democratically elected figures who it dislikes. The United States stumbles around the Middle East like a hypocritical giant, smashing everything in its way and blaming the destruction on the victims or unseen "terrorists," ignorant to the fact that it is the United States who is the root cause of the destruction.
I do not believe we should be isolationists, but I do believe we need to take a long, hard look at who we support and why. It may sound naive, but we need to take the moral highground sometimes, even if it means being a detriment to our economy. Supporting those who are most eager to be our allies instead of building alliances is certainly not the answer, but it is certainly the modus operandi of the United States' foreign policy in the Middle East and surrounding areas.
This post has been removed by the author.
Steven Gold--
The current Bush administration as with most (if not all) former administrations is what is more important to us now? In this case it is democracy or terrorism. With Pakistan, the article presents that the US gives aid to them to fight terrorism. Yet wasn't the goal of the current Gulf War democracy (weapon's of mass destruction aside)? This kind of mixed messaging is confusing.
We know of that 'crazy' dictator next to Pakistan (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran) is not a dictator at all, but a democratically elected President (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705 Yet we fear more of Ahmadinejad (democratically elected) than Musharraf (wrongfully elected, according to Pakistani Constitutional Law). Granted this may have to do with Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel (according to the media and 'the Israel Lobby'), that or his nuclear capabilities (if he legitimately has them). But Pakistan does have nuclear capabilities, even admitting so in 1992 (http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1992/920220.htm).
The US has supported 'terrorists' before too. These people were freedom fighters trying to suppress a regime. Remember the American Revolution?
US policy in the Middle East is very confusing. At one point they want democracy at any cost (see Iraq). At the other end is ending terrorism (see Pakistan).
--Steven Gold
The situation in Pakistan should be watched very carefully by idealists in the U.S. By idealists, I mean those who still believe that the U.S. might be capable of facilitating Western style democracy in Middle Eastern nations. Pakistan is turning out to be a perfect example of a country that is coming to democracy on its own terms. In fact, it seems that every time the U.S. pushes, Pakistan wobbles in the wrong direction. When General Musharraf first came to power, he was not backed by America, but seemed to make positive changes to the government, such as professionalizing the military and reducing corruption. However, when the U.S. tried to treat him as a pawn in the war on terror, the general instead used the relationship to his own economic advantage and did very little to permanently suppress the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Now, the U.S. is finding itself in the awkward position of watching a once promising country come close to collapse while still supporting the leader because of the role they invented for him in their own war. This situation goes to show that countries who deal with the United States unfortunately enjoy no advantage when trying to establish effective governmental institutions. It is time for the U.S. itself to realize that while our ideals and structures work for us, they cannot be forced upon others without upsetting results. If the situation in Pakistan does not reach a resolution soon enough, it will be one more piece of fodder in the anti-American arsenal for extremists in the Middle East.
In regards to the Middle East conflict, it appears that for the goals of the United States and much of the West, that Musharraf is best to remain in power. Although he is not democratically elected, he has served the interests of the US much more effectively than elected regimes such as Ahmadinejad or Hamas. As the article shows, if truly democratic elections were held in Pakistan, there is a great probability that a hard-line Islamist party would garner some control of the government. Furthermore, an Islamist regime or one hostile to western powers in possession of the country’s nuclear arsenal presents a multitude of problems, as it could threaten the West, but also completely disrupt any chance of ending the current conflict in the Middle East. As a nuclear power, it is crucial that Pakistan’s leadership continues to maintain the power structure so that the country does not fall. Although the article points out that there is increasing violence in Pakistan, Musharraf still heads the military, and thus the violence, while representing the struggle of some of the populace, is not of coup worthy consequence. While I do not agree with his elimination of free speech and independent judiciary; in a region with such little stability, it is essential that the powers remain unchanged at this time. Though, the example of Turkey shows that the military can effectively protect secularism, and has stepped in numerous times in that country to ensure regimes maintain the ideals of the constitution. If Pakistan was to follow in the footsteps of Turkey, with Musharraf heading the military and have substantial control of the nuclear arsenal, then there is the chance that democracy could be restored without becoming a strategic threat to western interests.
This post has been removed by the author.
The most important aspect of this issue does not have to do with democracy. It has to do with the liberal institutions that are generally associated with democracy. Mussharraf's failure to uphold his nation's constitution and then "legitimize" his action by declaring a state of emergency and seizing the Supreme Court and Media weakens short term hope in the Middle east.
Pakistan enjoyed these liberal institutions for much of the sencond half of the 20th century and a failure like this could leave others to think these insitutions don't work.
However, everytime Pakistan lost its liberal institutions it regained them within 12 years, leaving room to beleive that the institutions will return.
Once again the fact that a country can swing from 2 different types of conflicting societies so easily is not inspiring either.
It is nearly impossible to predict what the final outcome of Musshareff's actions will be, but the fact that liberal institutions have existed for some time in Pakistan is a positive sign.
mike kirby
I would have to agree with Mitch’s comments that “that Musharraf is simply another tool in the long line of dictators, authoritarians, and failures that the U.S. supports when the need calls for it.” The United States has a long, repetitive history of involving itself in other countries affairs (although these days, it’s pretty much pointing out the sky is blue). US involvement in Latin American countries, especially its habit of taking out one regime and putting one in that suits US governmental and economic interests, is widespread. However many times in Latin America, this support meant the support of brutal and devastating tyrannical dictatorships (for a few examples, US supported the 1930 Dominican Republic dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo, whose dictatorship was marked by tyranny and brutality; US support of the coup d’état bringing Augusto Pinochet to power in 1973 Chile, responsible for thousands of the los desaparecidos, or the “Disappeared ones”; US support of the right wing junta in El Salvador in 1980, in which death squads roamed freely throughout the country).
Following the 9/11 attacks, Musharraf joined with the United States in fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He claims that he did so in order to protect his own country, claiming that he was threatened that if he was in fact, not “with us (the United States)” then his country was surely “against us” and therefore “with” the terrorists. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-25-pakistan-memoir_x.htm). Pakistan began actively helping the United States in fighting the Taliban in the Afghanistan, prompting Osama Bin Laden to call for a jihad against Musharraff and his Pakistani army. (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/bin.laden.message/index.html?iref=mpstoryview). So naturally, Musharraf was seen as an “enlightened dictator” who was fighting terrorism alongside the United States.
So what gives then? Apparently, Musharraf isn’t doing enough anymore to fight terrorism – Al Qaeda is back to its pre – 9/11 strength and the Taliban continues its relentless fighting in Afghanistan. And now this – he throws off all pretenses of democracy, suspending the constitution and basically rendering the courts ineffective. The US response has been timid at best – firm words, but nothing more. Interesting, as someone else in the blog points out, that that “crazy dictator” (democratically elected…) in Iran is a huge overwhelming threat, capable of inciting the beginnings of World War III, but this is simply a problem where if Musharraf gives up his military role, then everything will be okay. Nothing is mentioned in this particular article about US aid being cut – but I’ll bet not much, if any was cut to Pakistan.
The United States is in quite the bind here, needing the help of nuclear power Pakistan, but also at the same time the United States needs to realize exactly how unpopular it is actually making Pakistan in the eyes of its own people and in the eyes of Muslims in the Middle East. And at the same time, the United States needs to save face – after all, if we are the champions of democracy, then there should be absolutely NO support for a dictatorship that suspends its own constitution. Interestingly enough, I think if the United States did come out strongly (and I mean strongly) condemning Musharraf’s actions, such action might actually give the slightest credibility of the United States ever endeavoring goal to bring “Democracy to the Middle East” (and I thought there were WMD in Iraq?). After all, if the United States is the fervent supporter of democracy as it claims to be (and should be), then it would naturally be completely against any leaning away from democracy – such as the actions of Musharraff in Pakistan.
Allison Schwier
The criticisms that plague US foreign policy often revolve around the notion that we are too quick to involve ourselves in the affairs of other sovereign nations. While such criticism has some merit based on the unintended consequences of being perceived as beholden to one side or another in a complicated international community with countervailing alliances, the United States has a responsibility to act in the best interest of its own security and by extension that of its citizens.
The criticism of such actions as the Iraq invasion is that while we deposed Saddam Hussein, we unleased uncontrollable forces of Islamic Extremism. Whether these forces needed the Iraq war to hate us or not is highly dubious, and recent developments there show that if we maintain our commitment we may yet yield some lasting positive accomplishments in the region. However it is often these same critics who also advocate an abandonment of Pervez Musharaff. This is a major contradiction. Pakistan is in a perpetual state of uncertainty and instability, and to suddenly support the overthrow of their leader would certainly only bring more chaos to a region already in a volatile state of disarray.
We can pressure Musharraf to make concessions because he needs us as much as we need him. This would be the smartest move. Who is to say if we have him replaced that we dont engender more Anti US sentiment and see him replaced by someone who is completely out of our control and not sits at the helm of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at a pivotal time in the region.
Those who advocate caution and criticize interventionism in other cases should heed their own advice in this one.
Overall, the support by the US shows their own hypocritical nature. Besides oil, United States interest within the Middle East revolve around promoting democracy. In Pakistan, we have a country who has received an abundant amount of funds from the US to promote democracy and deter terrorism. However, with the current situation, by no means can the US justify the move away from Pakistan's move away from democracy.
Musharraf's actions show that they never had a real democracy to being with. Free press and voting rights sound good on paper, but if at any time one person can take control, democract never existed in the first place.
As for the entire Middle East, this situation further discredits the mission of the US. Put simply, actions speak louder than words. You can not say something, then support the opposite. By not stepping in for the promotion of democracy, the US is being hypocritical and sending a clear message that they operate at a "what have you done for me lately" possition. In all, the Bush administration will surely blame the whole situation, like they do with everything else, on terrorism.
In order to end these conflict, the US needs to realize that funding troops and increasing security is not the only answer. Sure, security is important, but more emphasis needs to be placed on improving the capabilities of these weak governments. Our aid money should go to social services and reconstruction. Once the governments become strong enough to support all their citizens needs, there will be no need for the militant and social groups to arise.
U.S support for Pakistan, is just another part of American Foreign policy, to benifit our strategic interests. The U.S tends to turn a blind eye to dictatorships, if it benifits our foreign policy. It is much like our policy in the Latin America during the Cold War. Musharaf was helpful in rounding up members of Al-Qaeda and Taliban. However their are parts of Pakistan which he has no control over, and the Taliban are making a resergence. Maybe as Mitch said Musharraf is becoming less useful. However we give billions of dollars in aid to him, in attempts to spur the economy, and ensure his "aid" in the War on Terror. Pakistan as the article states was one of the few countries with some sort of democracy. Musharraf fearing a decrease in his power base made a move to withold it by attacking the media and the judiciary. According to the article, "Its ability to retain liberal poliical instituions even under military dictatorship is an important characteristic." The U.S must continue to support the Musharraf government, because no one wants to think of the alternatives. Although the radicals would probably never take over, even though Islamist Parties hold a majority in parliment, by not supporting Musharraf, the United States could risk throwing Pakistan into chaos. The stability of Pakistan is essential to broader Middle East security. The Taliban are resurgent in Afganistan because of the lack of control over the rugged Pakistani border. A threat to Musharraf could lead to a larger radical presence in a Nuclear country. Musharraf has now relinquished military control, which is a step forward. However with waning support he must reach out to the opposition, and continue to make democratic reforms, if Pakistan is to be viable.
-Dave Hanna
The situation in Pakistan seems to be representative of how the United States has dealt with not only countries in the Middle East but also Latin America. The U.S.
will back whatever regime or leader that is perceived in the strategic interest of the U.S.
As the article states, "Musharraf was seen as the go-to guy in eliminating Al Qaeda from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and as the bulwark that kept the extremists from taking over Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal".
"In return, the United States provided military and economic aid and did not pressure him to restore democracy in Pakistan." As a result of not pressuring Musharraf to restore democracy, Pakistan has become more of a breeeding ground for radical groups and anti-Americanism, which in turn will most likely have a negative effect on the U.S.
In the future the U.S. will need to realize that backing political figures mainly for our own interests and turning a blind eye to their actionswill eventually come back to harm U.S. goals.
The article brings up a good point for bring democracy to the middle east in general – if people are able to exercise their right to vote it’s a good chance that they will not vote who the US is hoping they will vote for. If you take a look at public reception of the United States in many countries, it is, at best, unpopular. Naturally, people will vote for policy makers that will not bend over for the US.
This begs the question: should the US continue to support democracy in states with unfriendly populations? The answer, in my opinion, is yes. I would guess that if the United States allows states to operate freely without meddling in their affairs then the population will have less reason to dislike the US, thus improving circumstances in the long. Naturally the transition period may be unpleasant, but then transition usually is.
I remember seeing Musharraf on the Daily Show a year or so ago and he stated that after September 11, he had to decide what was best for Pakistan. He very candidly admitted that he knew he had to ally himself with the United States in the War on Terror or there would be serious ramifications for his country (i.e. it would have been lumped into the axis of evil). I am thoroughly disappointed in the United States government’s support of Musharraf despite his recent actions. However, I must say that I am not surprised. As has already been mentioned, Musharraf is just another U.S. sponsored dictator who has free reign to violate international standards of conduct because the U.S. is utilizing him in someway.
The argument that Islamic extremists would be elected if there were free elections is ludicrous. The civil servants and intellectual elites of the country would never allow that. Furthermore, the only reason that Islamic extremists are even popular is because people are hopeless. They have tried desperately to end the dictatorships in the Islamic world for decades but have been unable to do so largely due to U.S. intervention—so they are now turning to religion as a last resort. The people in Pakistan as well as other countries in the region want the same rights of individual freedom and human dignity that we enjoy in the west. It is a fundamental need for man to be able to determine his own destiny. The west went through its revolutionary-enlightenment period and the Islamic world needs to go through one as well. Unfortunately, the west stops this from happening because we no longer understand the need to be free as we have enjoyed our freedom for too long. U.S. support of dictators like Musharraf is antithetical to our fundamental beliefs and it won’t stop until Americans demand it.
I think that it will be interesting to see how this situation will play out... obviously he has been called a tool of Washington or a lapdog or whatever. However, if he realizes he is capable of some flexiblity, like declaring a state of emergency, and still retain the US's support, he might realize he has more freedom than before, which could turn out in a variety of ways, especially as far as democracy goes. It is also interesting to contemplate the cost of the US's interests, why we continue to support dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere, and what sort of catastrophes could be avoided if the US operated under some sort of moral guideline. As far as the conflict is concerned... it seems that, initially at least, Musharraf would have made a good example the rest of the world, having brought them out of obscurity and advancing the governance in Pakistan. He seemed like he could potentially be a good example of a secular Muslim in the Middle East. However, I think that the state of emergency will continue to foster extremist action, providing a bad example to the rest of the East as a failed democratic state. I think that the US should take this into account to avoid any possible consequences or reactions that could stem from this, and reinforce democratic principles there.
Saddly for the US to further its cause in the Middle East it must support the blatant mockery Musharraf has made of the very institutions we demand from other nations. As one of the only Islamic States to have had democracy, at least in the instituitons of judiciary and media, Pakistan has been an ally we were forced to trust.
Now we still must support this regime at it murders what we hold dear as the Musharraf himself can still be seen as an ally where an elected government almost certainly would not. The government can make all the claims they want about being disturbed or trying to distance themselves from him but in the end we need him and Pakistan to combat terrorism and as a potential ally in negotiations in the Middle East. And we've seen it in the past, if the administaration needs someone as an ally they will ignore all else they have done and allign with them.
This crisis has the potential to go one of two ways, bringing Pakistan closer to being a true democracy with all the freedoms associated with that or plunging it deeper into political discord at the hands of a dictator. In recent days it has come out that the president will be stepping down as the head of the militiary. This is a big step towards repairing the problems with Pakistan, at least Musharraf is starting to follow the constitution that is in place. While Musharraf and Pakistan were and continue to be key in fighting against the Taliban and other terrorist cells, if the country falls apart though the United States will be stuck in a quagmire. Hopefully, by stepping down from the military and by embracing his position in the world and with the United States in the war on terror he can return the country from the brink of collapse back to the strong, economically viable country that he created in the late 1990's.
The situation in Pakistan is a very touchy one. It is no surprise that the U.S. would continue to support an undemocratic leader such as Musharraf; however, U.S. support for him is now very questionable concerning the fact that so many Al-Qaeda members are probably being trained and recruited in Pakistan.
If the U.S. were to withdraw its support for Musharraf the country could fall into the hands of someone worse. The best response of the U.S. would be to continue to support Musharraf until it can find someone who has the popularity and goals that the U.S. favors.
The main focus should be eliminating Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The U.S. should presure Musharraf to deal with the terrorists being trained and recruited in his country.
This event has political consequences all across the globe. First off, it could destabilize the sub-Asian continent. The rumblings may have ramifications in the Pakistan-India conflict which is never a positive as both are nuclear powers.
On that topic, Pakistan is a vital ally for America as it is nuclear in that region so key for fighting Islamic radicals. If Pakistan were to fall to groups such as al-Qaeda or the Taliban, the world would be in grave danger. America must do all that it can to have a regime in place that will agree with Washington.
In regards to the Middle East I think that it can have a few effects. One is that it can distract the Americans away from the conflict and give rise to other terrorist groups within the area. Secondly, the article stated that al-Qaeda is at pre-9/11 strength once more. This can lead the Americans to send more troops to this region to fight and patrol rather than helping in the Middle East. More people will get ideas that they can change laws and such as well. I think that it will affect the conflict purely due to the fact that it affects the Muslim world and it will be felt all over.
How realistic is transparent liberal democracy in Pakistan? Has it ever existed before? Yes, Musharraf is essentially a dictator but wasn’t everyone else who came before him? This discussion has been posed as Musharraf vs. Democracy and frankly that is an unrealistic view of the situation as Pakistan lacks the stability and institutions necessary for democracy. If Musharraf steps down, even if there were an election there is no reason to believe the next man or woman to rule Pakistan would be any more democratic than he is now. Musharraf at least nominally supports us in the war on terror, has brought some stability to his country and has been great for their economy – why throw him out when all evidence indicates that who ever comes in next will probably be far worse?
It seems as though President General Musharraf is making a movement towards a total dictatorship. First he moved against the media, which in my mind is the first step towards taking complete control of the populace. Taking away free media and free press and curbing media to depict stories which only benefit the current government is a manipulation of free thought. In only telling stories they want the people are unaware of the wrongdoing of the government. This is where his second move becomes achievable, placing the Supreme Court of Pakistan under military arrest. His power over the media allows him to control what information the people have about his actions. Musharraf’s movement against the media first and the Supreme Court second in my opinion are the primary steps for installing a total dictatorship in a country.
Post a Comment
<< Home