| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Rethinking Western Strategies Toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe |
| 2007-07-11 |
| By Frederic Grare Publisher: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Carnegie Endowment Report, July 2007 Link to full report Pakistan’s military is complicit in the worsening security situation in Afghanistan—including the resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi extremism and capabilities, says a new report from the Carnegie Endowment. Furthermore, current Western policies reinforce Pakistan’s political weakness and contribute to regional instability by allowing Pakistan to trade democratization for its cooperation on terrorism. In Rethinking Western Strategies Toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe, visiting scholar Frederic Grare analyzes the cost of continued military rule in Pakistan and presents new guidelines for Western policies. Grare argues that while Pakistan may partially cooperate with the West against international terrorism, without democratization Pakistan will continue its policies, resulting in continued regional instability. Key Conclusions: • Pakistan’s army has inflated the threat of religious sectarianism and jihadi extremism outside its borders, particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir, for its own self-interest. Faced with this seeming instability and a perceived lack of alternatives, the West adopted a more lenient attitude toward Pakistan’s military regime as a moderate stalwart against Islamic extremism. • Restoring stable civilian rule would lessen Pakistan’s obsession with the threat posed by India and focus Pakistan’s energy on its own economic development. • Of approximately $10 billion in assistance given to Pakistan since September 11, 2001, only $900 million has gone to development—the bulk being channeled to the military. U.S. and European Policy Recommendations: • The West should insist that: General Musharraf cease violating the constitution by holding the position of both president and the chief of the army staff; free and fair elections be held with international monitoring; Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir and Afghanistan cease; and all terrorist infrastructure within the country be disbanded. • U.S. financial assistance should be explicitly directed towards any shortcomings that impede Pakistan’s cooperation in combating terrorism, and remain dependent on results. • Policies, and if necessary, sanctions, should be directed towards the military and Pakistan’s small elite. The general population should, as much as possible, be shielded from affects of withholding assistance. • The United States should cease its campaign against political Islam in Pakistan. It has proven counterproductive and made U.S. policy dependent on Pakistan’s military, which claims to be the strongest rampart against religious extremism. “This report proposes a middle way,” writes Grare. “It addresses some of the challenges that the Pakistani military regime’s regional policies create for the international community, arguing that none can be resolved in isolation from the others. Arguing that the nature of the regime is the main source of trouble for the region, it urges a return to a civilian government according to Pakistan’s own constitution.” |
| Posted by:John Frum |
| #4 Likewise does Grare put the cart before the horse: The West should insist that: General Musharraf cease violating the constitution by holding the position of both president and the chief of the army staff; free and fair elections be held with international monitoring; Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir and Afghanistan cease; and all terrorist infrastructure within the country be disbanded. To hold "free and fair elections" without first dismantling Pakistan's terrorist infrastructure is to invite another Hamas-style popularly elected government. Only this time around it would be a terrorist government with access to nuclear weapons. Clearly, the man is delusional or working out of Jimmy Carter's playbook. Disabling Pakistan's terrorist infrastructure is such a monumental task that popular elections are nothing but a gleam in the future's eye. This is a classic damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't situation. Musharraf has specifically designed it this way to guarantee his position of power. Allowing Musharraf to be deposed takes the risk of seeing jihadi terrorists ascend to power in Pakistan. Not getting rid of Musharraf only continues the charade of his supposed fight against terrorism as Coalition soldiers continue to lose their lives in Afghanistan and more foreigners perish at the hands of Pakistani jihadis. We need to find a solution that addresses the negative aspects of both prospects. Sadly, one of the only ones that does is to throw up our hands and simply glass over this failed Islamic state. Not a pleasant prospect and one that goes against my own stance against first use of nuclear weapons. Unless the West is willing to apply military force to appropriate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and install some other form of more benevolent government, our choices are extremely limited. Allowing the situation to spiral further out of control is not an option. As has been expressed before, the forceful partitioning of Pakistan between Afghanistan, India and, possibly, Kashmir begins to appear more and more desirable. I'm hoping other Rantburgers can suggest some alternatives to this gruesome no-win situation. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-11 19:51 |
| #3 Our main interests with respect to Pak are securing the nukes, getting what info we can pry out of the ISI about OBL and Zowie's whereabouts, and cutting off aid to the Taliban. The fact that Grare doesn't address these points pretty much invalidates his Then there's this gem: The United States should cease its campaign against political Islam in Pakistan. It has proven counterproductive and made U.S. policy dependent on PakistanÂ’s military, which claims to be the strongest rampart against religious extremism. If this is the case, then who is to say a de facto campaign against Pakistan's current gov't wouldn't also be "counterproductive"? BTW, isn't it strange how the same people who always say "America shouldn't intervene" and "Exporting democracy is hopeless" have no qualms about prescribing these things whenever we're in no position to do so? |
| Posted by: charger 2007-07-11 11:30 |
| #2 "Restoring stable civilian rule" Restoring? Restoring? What planet have they been living on? Creating a sufficient mass of "stable civilians" from the current horde of Islamists would be a miracle. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-07-11 09:40 |
| #1 We need to force Pakistan on the issue of pursuit of terrorists across the border. We need to be going into those enclaves that enjoy immunity. The WOT has to be taken wherever necessary and that includes those havens in Pakistan. Musharaff has been tippy-toeing around. Hopefully, he has learned the lessons of the Red Mosque. If he hasn't, it will bite him again and again. The world cannot allow the crazies to obtain Paskistan's nuclear weapons. If we don't these nukes will be used on us. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-11 09:19 |