‘End of Unquestioning Support?’: At last!

Gulf News, Indian Express , The Nation ( Pakistan ) June 28, 2006
‘End of Unquestioning Support?’
Husain Haqqani

Pakistan ’s military regime might take comfort in the Bush administration’s support for reinstating the 300 million dollars in U.S. aid cut by the American Congress due to Pakistan ’s inadequate efforts for establishing democracy and respecting human rights. But the very fact that the House of Representatives voted to cut aid by a 373-34 vote and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of the importance of free and fair elections during her recent visit to Pakistan indicates that the phase of unquestioning support for General Pervez Musharraf in Washington is now over.

Foreign aid appropriations are often the major foreign policy lever available to the American government’s legislative branch. Under the U.S. constitution, U.S. Congress is a co-equal branch of government along with the executive, headed by the President, and the judiciary. Unlike Pakistan where almost all power is concentrated in the hands of the country’s Chief Executive, who is a uniformed army chief and unelected president, the U.S. system recognizes multiple power centers. While making foreign policy is the prerogative of the U.S. president, budget-making falls within the purview of the Congress. Quite often, Congress draws attention to what it considers as lapses of judgement by the president and his foreign policy team by using its power of the purse.

During the 1980s, Congress showed disapproval of American policy in Central America by barring covert military support for the Contras fighting the left-wing regime in Nicaragua . The Pressler amendment to the foreign aid bill, which followed the Symington and Glenn amendments, introduced the concerns of Congress about nuclear proliferation into U.S. aid policy. Pakistanis are all too familiar with the consequences of the Pressler amendment coming into effect. But at the time the Pressler amendment was originally approved, Pakistani officials had seen as a reprieve from aid cuts. Then, the Reagan administration had lobbied heavily in Pakistan ’s favour as continuing aid was crucial to ensure Islamabad ’s participation in the ongoing anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan .

This time, too, the Bush administration will cite the importance of General Musharraf’s support for the war against terrorism to ensure that its quid pro quo aid package remains unaffected. The US ambassador to Islamabad , Mr. Ryan Crocker, was quick in reassuring Pakistani officials that there would be no cut to the full amount of aid promised for the five year period ending in 2009 – three billion dollars. “We are a democracy,” Mr. Crocker was cited as saying. “Congress has its views, but I would like to make very clear that this administration is totally committed to providing the full amount,” he explained. But even if the Bush administration ensures the flow of aid, it cannot ignore the issues cited in the bill that cut the aid.

An overwhelming majority of U.S. congressmen, 373 from both parties to be precise, noted “increasing lack of respect for human rights, especially women’s rights, and the lack of progress for improving democratic governance and the rule of law’’ in Pakistan under general Musharraf. Only 34 representatives in the U.S. House appeared to buy the Pakistani government’s claim that it was in the process of establishing “genuine democracy.” Even these 34 cannot be said to approve of Musharraf’s domestic policies and could have voted against the bill only because they did not want to embarrass a current American ally.

No Pakistani can celebrate a proposed reduction in the flow of external resources to their homeland. But given the Musharraf regime’s tendency to cite international, particularly American, support to justify its undemocratic domestic policies, it is natural for Pakistani democrats to take heart from the changing mood in Washington . Pakistan Peoples Party Senator Akbar Khawaja summed up the sentiment when he observed, “We do not welcome a reduction in aid because it is a loss to the country. But if international bodies are noticing that there’s a need for democracy and improving human rights, it is a positive sign.”

Pakistan will probably receive the full amount of aid and the Congressional aid cut will most likely be reversed through the intervention of the Bush administration for now. But the concerns about human rights and democracy expressed by Congress are only likely to continue to grow. The Musharraf regime’s ostensible help in the hunt for international terrorists cannot remain an indefinite excuse for ignoring what is clearly a deteriorating human rights situation.

Under the military’s overall direction, Pakistan has an established authoritarian tradition that has, unfortunately, endured even during periods when civilians have seemed in charge. In recent years, Pakistani authoritarianism has degenerated into greater violence. Some elements in the U.S. national security establishment condone the disappearance and detention without trail of suspected Islamist terrorists. But in Pakistan , the disappearance of opposition figures in no way connected to Al-Qaeda and its associates indicates that Pakistan ’s ubiquitous security agencies are applying the questionable methods of the war against terrorism to the regime’s critics and opponents.

The suspicious disappearance and subsequent brutal murder of journalist Hayatullah Khan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas highlights a dirty war like those fought against their people in the 1970s and 1980s by Latin American military regimes. Hayatullah had embarrassed the government by revealing, with pictures, the falsehood of an official claim that an Al-Qaeda member had been killed while making a bomb. The terrorist had, in fact, been hit by a U.S. missile. Instead of learning to tell the truth about its actions, and those of its U.S. ally, it seems that someone considered it more convenient to kill Hayatullah. The journalist’s murder also scares other reporters into avoiding the tribal areas just as the brutal killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl scared western reporters away from the troubled city of Karachi .

An opposition figure, Dr Safdar Sarki of the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) has been missing for days and one need not agree with his political views to feel the pain of his family. Incidentally, Dr. Sarki is a U.S. citizen and General Musharraf should not have difficulty in figuring out that his disappearance at the hands of Pakistan ’s invisible political enforcers is unlikely to endear the Musharraf regime further with the U.S. Congress.

Increasing human rights violations and the absence of democracy in Pakistan can no longer be explained away under the cover of a relatively free media. The key attributes of a democracy include the right of the people to vote in fair elections, form and run political parties and oust rulers from office in addition to living under the rule of law. Pakistan ’s elections under military rule have never been completely fair. Political parties face constant meddling from the intelligence services. General Musharraf’s alleged plans for democracy have no provision for a change of rulers. And Pakistani citizens, such as the families of journalist Hayatullah, political activist Safdar Sarki and several Baloch politicians have no recourse to the law in dealing with covert operations aimed at silencing them.

(Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University’s Center for International Relations and Co-Chair of the Hudson Institute’s Project on Islam and Democracy. He is the author of the Carnegie Endowment book ‘Pakistan Between Mosque and Military’)


Popular posts from this blog

What happened between Musharraf & Mahmood after 9/11 attacks

Political feudalism in Sindh

Remembering Dr Hussein Mullick