Washington has a problem, a problem that will not yield to money, political influence, or the strategic use of “carrots and sticks.” This predicament does not stem from domestic issues; instead, it has shown its ugly face in a country that I would venture to say 90 percent of Americans couldn’t locate on a map. Not only does this quandary carry serious implications for the United States, but for the world as well.
Do you know who I am talking about? Pakistan is the problem, a country that is being torn apart by a strong-armed, stubborn general who does not know when to quit. Most have heard through various news outlets that General Musharraf has declared emergency rule, which grants sweeping powers for authorities to crush any and all political dissent. This seems like a far cry from the democracy that Musharraf has been promising since his successful coup in 1999.
Pakistan is an incredibly unstable country, unstable yet armed with nuclear weapons. Musharraf has argued that emergency powers had to be implemented in order to ensure the safe keeping of their nuclear arsenal. This reasoning seems understandable; however, his timing says otherwise. Because Musharraf implemented these dictator-like powers immediately after a Pakistan Supreme Court ruling required parliamentary elections, the Pakistani population is up in arms.
This presents a major problem for America, specifically within the Bush administration. President Bush has spoken with Musharraf and told him that elections must be held as soon as possible. Moreover, he assertively petitioned Musharraf to remove his military uniform and step down as leader of the army.
When all things are considered – the war on terrorism, importance of middle-east stability, as well as Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal – it is clear that the United States needs Pakistan more than they need us. This is why government policy should not rush to isolate Pakistan as a form of punishment for the Musharraf administration’s egregious policies. Cutting off aid will only contribute to instability in Pakistan that can potentially result in nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists.
While President Bush seems to understand the implications involved in leaving Pakistan hanging out to dry, our Congress has not received the memo. One of the first pieces of legislation that this 110th Congress passed was a bill stipulating sanctions on military aid if Pakistan cannot control militants on its borders. This seems counter-intuitive. It would be like de-funding border patrol in the U.S. if they did not control the borders, which would lead to even less control over our borders. Nevertheless, Congress passed this legislation, which specifically calls on President Bush to certify that “the Government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.” Otherwise, U.S. aid will be withdrawn.
Just recently Congress unofficially reprimanded the Pakistani government, again threatening to reduce aid. As did presidential candidate and current Senator Joe Biden, running his mouth a bit too much. Before I go further, let me say that I like Joe Biden, and believe he is the best candidate that the Democratic Party has to offer. But he has to know when to stop. When he makes statements such as, “I’m not sure how much good that military aid we’re giving him to fight the extremists is doing us anyway,” he clearly does not understand the catch-22 position that the Pakistani leadership is facing.
Pakistan is one of the most important allies we have in the fight against terrorism. Reducing aid is not an option. It is fine to talk about, and our government talks a lot, but actually reducing aid would hurt the United States more than anyone else. We must understand the circumstances that General Pervez Musharraf is facing. This is a man who is attempting to help America despite his citizens’ major lack of support. Musharraf himself has said that military operations in the last few years have alienated locals to the point that it has become exponentially more difficult to retain accurate intelligence concerning senior Islamic militants.
I believe that General Pervez Musharraf was attempting to secure his leadership position by implementing these so-called emergency powers. However, I also believe that because of the response by President Bush and some members of congress, Musharraf’s attempt has failed, and he knows it. Recent events have shown that Musharraf is willing to allow parliamentary elections, promptly. Also, with the return of exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the people have a new leader to rally around, one that can continue to secure the country’s nuclear weapons.
This change in leadership can be congenial for the United States. We can look at it as a fresh start for our mutually beneficial relationship. The Pakistani people may realize that we have no stranglehold over their government. In other words, a government led by former Prime Minister Bhutto is certainly not a proxy government created by the U.S. With a change in Pakistani leadership there should come a change in our policy. The Bush administration should practice complete public detachment from Pakistan. This means no public threats against this sovereign nuclear-armed country. This policy should be implemented in the hopes that Pakistanis will cease their skepticism of U.S. interests, and see themselves as equal partners with us. In turn, this may lead to improved intelligence, and the more efficient destruction of Taliban and al-Qaida infrastructure.
[email protected]