Intresting, what does homebase think?
Our Man in Pakistan
America’s Darling in War on Terror May Hinder Pakistan’s Democratic Dreams
Oct. 9 — Three years ago, when he assumed absolute control of some 140 million people and more than 30 nuclear bombs, Gen. Pervez Musharraf made a solemn vow to the Pakistani people.
He was a “soldier, not a politician,” the stocky military chief assured his people. And like a good old soldier, he promised to “silently fade away” after he restored democracy to Pakistan.
Seemingly true to his word — and in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling ordering him to restore civilian democracy within three years of his Oct. 12, 1999, coup — Pakistan is going to the polls on Thursday to elect national and provincial parliaments.
But in the months running up to the polls, Musharraf’s rhetoric on restoring democracy has been undergoing a gradual, but perceptible, shift.
And for many Pakistanis, who have in the past watched their country slip into military control amid loud declarations of eventually bowing to the “people’s will,” the changing oratory has a familiar ring.
In recent televised addresses and news conferences, Musharraf has offered his people a “guided democracy,” an “elected essence of democracy” and a “move toward a sustainable democracy” — everything, experts note, besides a true democracy.
Amid harsh condemnations from political parties, civil societies and monitor groups, Musharraf has strengthened the hold of the military in the future Pakistani government. He has extended his term for five years, barred major opposition leaders from contesting the elections, and all the while offered his people an ever-increasing list of adjectives qualifying the term democracy.
Waiting for New F-16 Fighter Jets
One year since he upgraded his image from militant-backer to militant-basher and transformed his country from an economic sanction-facing, diplomatically overlooked state on the brink to a recipient of international aid and concern, the divide between how Musharraf is viewed at home and abroad is stark.
In Washington, the suave Pakistani general who enjoys his evening scotch is the darling of America’s fight against terrorism. His rise in favor was highlighted last month, when President Bush, citing security concerns, waived restrictions — some dating back more than 10 years — on the sale of military equipment to Pakistan and neighboring India.
The sanctions were imposed in 1998 after the two South Asian nations conducted a series of nuclear tests, sparking widespread international fears and condemnations.
But a year after the United States launched its war in Afghanistan, all seems to be forgiven.
During a visit to the capital of Islamabad last month, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith told reporters the Bush administration was interested in restoring military aid to Pakistan, a deal the Pakistani military hopes will include new F-16 fighter jets.
While the renewed military ties have rekindled Pakistan’s hopes of acquiring the F-16s, retired Lt. Gen. Kamal Matinuddin, author of The Nuclearization of South Asia, believes Washington will “keep Pakistan on tenterhooks” in the immediate future and is likely to adopt a “carrot-and-stick approach.”
What Matinuddin does not doubt is Musharraf’s intention to use the newly acquired military hardware against India if war between the two nuclear rivals break out.
“Whatever military hardware is obtained [from] the United States, it will not be put to use for cotton wool,” says Matinuddin. “It is very clear that Pakistan would use it against India in the eventuality of a war.”
Like the Other Tyrants
But while Washington is slowly reopening its military arms to Musharraf, experts say the general’s credibility among moderate Pakistanis — who supported his decision to join forces with the United States in its war on terrorism — is at an all-time low.
“I think for many people, the turning point came during the [April 30] referendum because it was such a familiar move,” says Zia Mian of the Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. “Musharraf, despite all his protestations, has done exactly the same thing other tyrants have done.”
Independent observers and rights groups, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, found evidence of widespread fraud and coerced voting during the April referendum, when the government announced that 97 percent of the votes were cast in favor of Musharraf extending his power for the next five years.
The general’s popularity took a nose dive in the months following the referendum, when he passed a series of controversial constitutional amendments that granted him the power to sack Parliament. He also provided for the creation of a civilian-military National Security Council, which he would chair, to oversee the government.
Earlier this week, the HRCP accused the military government of rigging the polls in the runup to Thursday’s election by coercing local politicians to join the newly formed PML(Q) party, which the Pakistani press has dubbed the “king’s party.”
A splinter group of the Pakistan Muslim League headed by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — who is currently in exile and banned from taking part in the elections — the PML(Q) is widely seen as backing the military. According to the commission, the military was instrumental in creating the splinter party.
Under the Shadow of the ISI
But for most Pakistanis, the most alarming aspect of the election campaign has been the rampant use of the ISI, or Interservices Intelligence, the country’s notorious intelligence agency.
ISI involvement in Pakistani politics is nothing new. But according to the Pakistani press, ISI manipulation and coercion during the 2002 campaign has reached unprecedented levels, with politicians alleging they were summoned by ISI operatives and urged to join the PML (Q).
Pakistani critics of the military regime complain the West fails to understand the extent of ISI’s insidious reach.
“Under the military, civilian life is like living under the shadow of something sinister; you are not free to do what you want,” says Shaheen Sehbai, former editor of the News, Pakistan’s leading English-language daily. “In some areas, so-called collaborators are free to do anything — even illegal acts — if it’s in line with the military. But if you’re perceived to be out of line, you’re punished.”
Crossing the Line
Currently in self-imposed exile in Virginia, Sehbai says he is paying the price for crossing that line earlier this year. Like many Pakistani journalists, Sehbai claims he was routinely pressured by officials to either not publish, or at least tone down, stories that Musharraf’s government didn’t like.
But things got out of hand in February, when Sehbai published an article that said Sheik Omar Saeed, convicted in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, had admitted to having ISI links.
The night before the paper went to press, Sehbai says he received a call on his cell phone at 1 a.m. asking him to recall the story. He refused — and the next morning, all hell broke loose.
The military government withdrew its advertising revenues, a crippling move given that the military has an extensive reach into state-run companies and agencies from steel, telecom and infrastructure services to commercial enterprises such as insurance, real estate and travel agencies as well as an airline, an FM radio station, a pay-TV channel, and one of the country’s largest banks.
Although he fled Pakistan for Virginia, where he currently publishes the South Asia Tribune, a news site on the Web, Sehbai says his extended family back home is paying the price for his journalism.
An 18-year-old nephew has been in jail since late August without charge, says Shebai, an action that leaves him feeling particularly helpless since he says the boy has “nothing to do with my work — he knows nothing, he’s an 18-year-old boy.”
‘Nobody Consults the People of Pakistan’
While many activists and ordinary citizens say they understand Washington’s focus on the fight against al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, they complain that the United States conveniently ignores the deteriorating domestic situation as long as Musharraf continues to support the war on terrorism.
“This view that Musharraf is good for the security of Pakistan is held by people sitting thousands of miles away from Pakistan,” says I.A. Rehman, HRCP director, while noting that the hard-line Islamic parties have consistently fared poorly in national and local elections. “Nobody consults the people of Pakistan.”
While most experts maintain that Musharraf, and not the Pakistani people, will hold the reins of power after the Oct. 10 elections, they are hesitant to predict how much bite the newly elected Parliament will have.
If the two leading opposition parties — Sharif’s PML and the Pakistan People’s Party headed by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who is also disbarred from running in the elections — do secure a majority, experts foresee a likely showdown between the military and civilian powers.
And if that happens, Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group says Washington’s response will be critical.
“Initially, if Washington is seen as backing the military government, it would then be seen as obstructing democracy,” warns Ahmed. “And if the United States fails to pressurize Musharraf, Pakistan is going to be a politically unstable state, which would not be in the United States’ favor.”
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/pakistan021009_elections.html