| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Turmoil in Pakistan Tempts the Democrats |
| 2007-11-21 |
| Michael Shank, Arab News The Democratic presidential candidates have been salivating for a situation like Pakistan to come along the campaign trail. Eternally looking soft on security and stuck with no road map for Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan offers the candidates an opportunity to brandish new security strategies. With President Pervez Musharraf’s violent crackdown on opposition parties, human rights organizations, media, lawyers, and the general populace, they have the perfect opportunity to posture. Trouble is, however, with Democratic White House hopefuls Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Edwards slating new strategies for Pakistan: They all have got their analysis flat wrong. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, to his credit, was first out of the misguided gate long before Musharraf derailed all semblance of civility. Still spinning from fellow candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s jab at his offer to dialogue with adversaries (too naïve and inexperienced, she said) Obama countered Clinton’s criticism by swinging hard at Pakistan. In an about-face — to appear hard, not soft, on security — the plan was simple: Move from the wrong battlefield, i.e. Iraq, to the right battlefield, i.e. Pakistan. If actionable intelligence exists on high-value terrorist targets, said Obama, then US strikes will follow, regardless of cooperation from Islamabad. Eagerness got the better of Obama on this one, though, as foreign policy wonks from Washington to Waziristan cited this as utterly ill-advisable and wrong-headed. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, more recently, has emerged as the candidate least cautious to ramp up rhetoric on Pakistan. His first gaffe, assisted by candidate and Gov. Bill Richardson: Comparing Pakistan of today to Iran of the late 1970s. Biden conjectured that conservative religious types of today will similarly rise to overthrow the US-backed regime. As the Shah was replaced by the Supreme Leader and the Ayatollahs, the analogy beckoned, so too will Musharraf be replaced by the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. Thankfully, extremism’s foothold remains weak as Islamic parties have never polled well in Pakistan, garnering roughly 11 percent of the vote. (Moreover, any non-democratic seizing of power by conservatives would result in a massive public uprising on par with present-day protests.) Contrast that with the competition to Musharraf, former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, at 65 percent of the vote, a number likely to rise given the recent bombing and house arrest targeting Bhutto, both of which increased her political profile. Add to that a sizeable pocket of progressives abstaining from either party, disaffected by the corruption in both Bhutto and Sharif’s regimes, and a trend toward moderate mandates emerges. What Biden should focus on instead then is maintaining this mandate, a task increasingly compromised by US military aid to Musharraf. Biden’s second gaffe: With the help of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in a recent foreign affairs subcommittee resolution, he pledged to suspend “assistance for the purchase of weapon systems not directly related to the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taleban.” Translation? No aid will be cut; Pakistan claims all fights are related. Better if Biden would bide his time until a more laudable policy emerged. Like Obama, enthusiasm to separate from the presidential pack got the better of Biden. More laudable would be if Obama and Biden bid military bluster adieu and plotted out non-military strategies to undermine Taleban operations in Pakistan. As in Iraq, a military solution — the only response executed by Musharraf to date — is not the answer. It is the political, economic, and social sectors — and the need for stability within each — to which the president and by proxy the United States, must attend. Clinton in her vehement condemnation of emergency rule in Pakistan perhaps came closest in countenancing the real source of the problem. The failed policies of the Bush administration were to blame, the senator said, diverting “resources and attention from the fight against terrorism on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, while inciting radical elements inside Pakistan.” While correct on the former point i.e. Bush administration policies are problematic, it is the latter point where she drifts. In fact, there is no diversion from the border fight, but rather a too heavy-handed approach. The indiscriminate shelling of border villages by Musharraf, aided by American intelligence, finances, and equipment, is helping radicalize locals against the government. Clinton’s showing of cards with this quote, gives clues to how she might fight the war once president: Bomb the border better. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, lastly, ranks weakest among all four candidates mentioned here, only because of his lack of learnedness. Edwards mistakenly thinks that “we provide billions of dollars in assistance of all kinds,” to Pakistan. Perhaps, had Edwards done his homework, he would know that of the $10 billion in US aid sent to the country since 2001, only $26 million has been funneled toward democratic elections. Most of US assistance is of the military kind, not the social, contrary to what US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte claims when protesting aid withdrawal, citing social sector concerns. If any of the Democratic presidential candidates actually focused on the social concerns of Pakistanis, much could be done to undermine the radical extremism worrying Clinton and others. Pakistan now ranks below Myanmar in the United Nations Human Development Index’s social indicators — a fact not terribly surprising given that Musharraf, in the last eight years of rule, has invested only 2 percent of GDP on education. Pakistan then, for the Democratic candidate confounded with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a huge opportunity; a little social investment will go a long way. But unfortunately no candidate seems to be approaching Pakistan in that way. The country is merely serving as a study in security strategy, and it appears their success at it is on par with precedent. — Michael Shank is an analyst with the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Virginia |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 Poor old Pakistan. As if they don't have enough problems. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2007-11-21 12:46 |