Musharraf's Fall Won't Unleash Pakistan's Nukes
Since the Musharraf regime's suspension of the constitution in Pakistan, there has been a lot of talk about the dangers of Islamabad's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists should his regime be overthrown. These fears are greatly exaggerated, as Bill Arkin notes in an article entitled "Don't Let Nukes Become Musharraf's Excuse" that appears on his excellent "Early Warning" blog on the Washington Post web site.
He notes that "Pakistan doesn't have 'bombs' that could be just picked up and carted off by Al Qaeda. By all indications, Pakistan's nuclear materials are stored separately from its warheads, not assembled as ready-to-use weapons." Furthermore, the components are stored in two or more secret, heavily guarded locations.
In addition, it's not like getting rid of Musharraf is tantamount to the collapse of the Pakistani military. As Pakistani expert Ahmad Rashid told Trudy Rubin in an interview that was incorporated into her column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Musharraf's likely successor, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, is widely admired both within the military and among civilian leaders. There is no obvious reason why he shouldn't be able to sustain the military as a cohesive institution that can continue to enforce current safeguards over the country's nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Rubin notes, Kiyani is a "soldier's soldier" who thinks that the military should stay out of politics. Rashid also notes that he has a longstanding relationship with Benazir Bhutto, and thus should be able to work with her should she win in a fair election.
Thus, a U.S. policy of cutting off military aid and putting all of its economic and political clout behind an effort to get Musharraf to restore constitutional rule and permit fair elections under international supervision runs little or no risk of "unleashing" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The real challenge is for the longer-term, when the U.S. should press a civilian Pakistani government to get rid of its nuclear weapons in conjunction with a regional understanding with India. As Zia Mian put it in an appearance on the Lehrer Newshour, we need to press for an outcome in which "the United States basically decides that it's on the side of democracy and that democracy is the path for building a government and society that will actually deal with the insurgents and will decide that it doesn't want nuclear weapons."
Hopefully U.S. support for democracy will move beyond the current "Bhutto or bust" approach. Not only does she have a history of corruption and anti-democratic practices within her own party, as Steve Coll notes in an article in the latest issue of the New Yorker, but she has historically been an advocate for Pakistan's nuclear program. There are other legitimate political forces that could mount an effective election campaign against Bhutto, whose recent dalliance with Musharraf has prompted some Pakistanis to label her People's Party the "Pervez Party."
Something I haven't seen reported on, with regards to a push for Musharraf's ouster: What would happen with the Kashmir situation and Pakistan's relations with India
Would any of the potential top choices for replacement be better at reigning in the cross-border militants? How is their rhetoric against India? Are any of them strong supporters for a military reclamation of Kashmir?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 14, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preference for democracy—which,ironically, mentors of President George W. Bush believe to be a universal impulse that will prevail wherever tyranny is removed—is very much evident in the population of Pakistan. Musharraf has definitively proven himself to be a tyrant. In a country where preference for democracy and rule of law is so prominent, such a tyrant cannot, even to those who consider security to be the ultimate consideration, reasonably be considered to be the long-term embodiment of security; there will always be opposition elements who would like to be rid of him, and the prospect of a military coup cannot be dismissed. The US administration should abandon efforts to save Musharraf on the insupportable grounds that in him rests security to which all else must be secondary, and should use all available US influence to encourage and strenghten democratic elements in Pakistan, including members of the judiciary who demand that branch's restoration.
November 14, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, We need to understand that Pakistan only took measures against the Red Mosque in Islamabad, which had kidnapped Chinese Women, and after Chinese Motorcycle salespersons had been killed in Peshwar, when the Chinese made a diplomatic protest last summer. China has far more influence in Pakistan than the US. China has huge investments in Pakistan -- it built the new port at Gadwar, it is financing the expansion of the road system from Pakistan into Western China, It is principle finance agent behind the proposed Iran to Pakistan to India and potentially to China Natural Gas Line, plus the LQ facilities on the Arabian Sea. Much of this investment is partnered with the Pakistani Army.
This week the Chinese Press was singing the praise of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistani Army -- just as some of the US Media is now beginning to do. He apparently attended the staff school at Ft. Levenworth. He also apparently likes Bhutto, as does Bush.
One can more or less see how it will proceed, but it will hardly be toward a democracy.
Bhutto is from one of the most wealthy and largest land owning families in Sind -- a province where the poor live in semi-feudal conditions, and have long before Pakistan became Pakistan. No democracy can emerge until the economic and class conditions change in Sind, and that is hardly Bhutto's platform. Since the late 50's, Pakistan has functioned around provincial and regional interests, as opposed to any sense of National Interests. Virtually none of the candidates for leadership have a national agenda.
November 14, 2007 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still cannot shake the feeling that there is a bit of missing the forest for all the trees in this. Current events in Pakistan are a valid concern, but I do not believe that an opening up of Pakistan's political process would lead to a national electoral victory by radicalised Islamic partisans. Additionally, each day that the world accepts the legitimacy of Pakistan's dictatorship is a plus for the radicalised Pakistani groups, because it provides them with a target to vilify and a means to justify future tyranny through past references.
The current tight focusing may be improperly causing America to forget and/or deny the reality of our own past mistakes in the region, as well as not properly working towards resolving what could well be a coming monsoon, which will dwarf the present-day concerns.
Why does everyone seem willing to give the Bush Administration a free pass for Pakistan's current problems? They turned away from taking al Qaeda to ground at Tora Bora; they instead took us into an immoral War Upon Iraq. They ignored and denied al Qaeda licking its wounds, healing and then metastising in Pakistan's northern tribal area.
Why does everyone ignore the fact that Mr. Bush was woefully unprepared in his knowledge about South Asia, when he was first running for president? Mr. Bush has many times described Musharraf as our anti-terror ally and partner, notwithstanding Pakistan's past support for the Taliban and the tribal kinship fomented during the 80's. Yet back in November 1999, Mr. Bush did not even know Pervez Musharraf's name:
This was spun out by the Bush handlers as being nothing but ambush journalism, over a topic that was of little concern to America's interests:
There also seems to be little concern about China's attempts to contain India's projection of influence and control. In the present instance of Pakistan, China is providing it with aid and technology, but in the future, unresolved borders, and other controversies presently being handled diplomatically with talk and subterfuge could easily escalate into a military confrontation between the two most populous states on Earth.
November 14, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Supreme Court was very cautious in its first years refusing to rule on what it deemed were political questions. This exercise of judicial discretion kept the Court from conflict with the political branches. (It also kept the US from having truly representative governance until Baker v Carr's found that the Constitution requires a one person, one vote mandate.)
We were also fortunate to have as our first President a General who wished to return to farming.
Pakistan does not currently have these attributes. Musharraf is reluctant to relinquish power and the Pakistan Supreme Court may well be correctly interpreting their Constitution which I have not seen but has indeed put thir Court directly into political conflict with the political branches.
The would-be democrats have severely overplayed their hand: you have a reigning dictator who proposes to let go half of his power, you then expect him to let go the first half -- his military position -- while at the same time retaining the right to disallow him from retaining the second half -- his power as an 'elected' President.
The results were utterly predictable. Pakistan is now further from both stability and democracy than before the actions of their Supreme Court and the democracy advocates.
Similarly, the opposition's plan to boycott the elections almost guarantees a prolonged period with a semi-illegitimate government. Musharraf will nonetheless run the elections, his people will be elected and he will then have a semi-illegitimate legislature in his pocket.
In short, the opposition strategy gambles on a complete collapse from Musharraf and if that does not occur leads to a worse outcome for everybody except the extremists who feed on disorder.
Two questions:
1. How much better off would Pakistan actually be if Musharraf suddenly attained nobility or acquired despair and resigned? Would this lead to a functioning democracy or would Bhutto actually lead to a restoration of a corrupt feudal situation with controlled voting?
2. What would have been a better strategy for the would be democrats which would not lead to this impasse while remaining true to the principles of democracy?
November 15, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if any sharing of positive control/permissive action link technology, while sensitive, has been shared with Pakistan as well as the fUSSR. While it probably would be too late to implement if it hasn't been implemented, this would make it harder for a radical takeover to arm nuclear weapons, and, depending on how it is done, might let Musharraf remotely disable weapons.
If reports are true that Pakistan keeps its weapons disassembled, different measures would be needed. Still, it was stabilizing to give the Soviets some technology to prevent rogue or accidental launch.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 15, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink