Share
For those of you who have been following the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, a recent comment from President Bush should come more as a disappointment than as a surprise.
For those who have not been following, let me fill you in. Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in a military coup in 1999, has been met with incredible protests in the past weeks as pressure for him to step down or at least to hold democratic elections have mounted.
Thousands of opposition leaders have been jailed and he has declared martial law as he attempts to cling to power. However, Musharraf is a declared "ally" of America and at the risk of alienating other potential, more principled allies, the U.S. and President Bush have steadfastly supported him during this time.
And it looks like we will continue to support him for the tumultuous remainder of his time in office.
Bush stated that the arrests of thousands of peaceful civilians who dared to speak out against oppression, "(hadn't) crossed the line" and that Musharraf "truly is somebody who believes in democracy" in a Nov. 20 interview. While we have been forced to swallow some serious bull from this administration, this just might take the cake in terms of outrageous commentary, not to mention insulting too many actual supporters of democracy in Pakistan.
While the humanitarian crisis on the ground is close to reaching a boiling point, I would like to take this opportunity to look at the situation more objectively. What are the repercussions of supporting Musharraf?
Many claim that although he's tough on his people, his pro-American stance makes him the only viable choice from our policy perspective. This logic is fundamentally flawed and is not supported by history.
The misguided American policy of supporting tyrannical strongmen in situations where we see no other option has time and again resulted in negative outcomes.
While our support of Musharraf is claimed as justifiable because he is better than the alternatives in his support of America, the result is that by supporting a dictator we are associated with that dictator and our image and respect in Pakistan and other nations plummets. In other words, it backfires.
True, several alternatives to Musharraf are just as bad. Benazir Bhutto's government was packed with massive corruption and incompetence and seeing her return to power may not be in the best interest of all Pakistanis.
Leave a comment 7 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
There is no comparison between 1970's Iran and today's Pakistan. The protests by lawyers etc. have been small and the public has not joined them. Neither is Pakistan collapsing or exploding. Please keep your simplistic and hysterical American worldviews limited to college newspapers and dont meddle in other's people's affairs.
Reply to this Top
while we don't all have the same opinions in this world, what makes this country great is that we are all allowed to hold our own. So please with all due respect don't attack a person for having an opinion on something they they are concerned about, but instead just present your counter-analysis and then move on. Thank you.
Reply to this Top
matt's right, continuing to support Pakistan's corrupt leadership will only lead to more problems in the future. the UK has already suspended their membership in the Commonwealth, it's time we follow their example and make a good foreign policy decision for once.
Reply to this Top
spazz: My counter analysis is that Pakistan doesnt want nor need American interference and given that Americans approach foreign affairs through stereotypes and labels, that their are also incompetent in foreign affairs. Witness the great achivements of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reply to this Top
Musharraf has done some good things that have benefited Pakistan under his presidency unlike Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Shariff, but his recent actions like imposing emergency rule and taking out the independent judiciary are not in the best interest of Pakistan. There is at least one candidate who would be better for Pakistan and that candidate is Imran Khan, he leads the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (party of justice). US needs to stop trying to influence or interfere in internal affairs of Pakistan though, they shouldn't be trying to promote a corrupt and a worse person than Musharraf into back into power.
Reply to this Top
Abbas, in response to your personal attack, keeping a watch on international news wires including "Le Monde" and "The Economist" have helped me to understand the situation better. My opinions are neither "hysterical" nor "simplistic" and I suggest you compare notes with Mr. Musharraf who seems to believe the situation is so extreme to merit martial law based on his assumption that the state was seriously "threatened", contrary to your claims. From your prose and your statements I gather you are not an American and suggest that you understand my article simply tried to analyze the best course of action for America's future foreign policy which would be to support the democratic process and let Pakistanis finally control their own destiny.
Reply to this Top
Matt Elridge: It would be better if your read Pakistani newspapers about Pakistani issues, and not Le Monde or The Economist or some western newspaper, who are not residents of Pakisan. I have seen "democractically elected" leaders in Pakistan who did nothing except corruption and time-wasting, and I have seen "dictators" like Musharraf who confronted problems and risked his life in doing so. That is why I support a man like Musharraf who is now transitioning to democracy. However Americans hear words like "emergency" or "democracy" or "freedom" and then read some action-filled articles in the western press and reach entirely different conclusions. That is why I, as a Pakistani, ask Americans to mind their own business.
Reply to this Top