Sunday, November 04, 2007

The Politics of Fear, Here and There

This is a follow-up on Anil's excellent post. I write to note how plain it seems that the I-had-to-declare-martial-law-to-combat-Islamist-terrorists justification for Pervez Musharraf's emergency declaration is primarily aimed at an American audience. If they are paying attention, even American neocons can see that the declaration will likely weaken Musharraf's ability to fight the Islamists. A clear-eyed analysis in The Weekly Standard concludes:
The declaration of a state of emergency is one of the worst possible moves Musharraf could have made to address the problem of the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda. He has alienated his potential allies, turned away Benazir Bhutto, and united disparate elements of the opposition. Secular parties and Islamists will now share a single voice in opposition to his blatant disregard for the rule of law, and the emphasis of the Pakistani security forces will shift from combating the Taliban to maintaining order in an increasingly turbulent political environment.
Thus, most observers familiar with the situation in Pakistan understand that the state of emergency is in fact a ploy to protect power from slipping to the democratic opposition, not a move against the violent Islamist opposition. Certainly liberal Pakistanis---who fear Islamists as much as they fear Musharraf---are not fooled.

But the American public may well be fooled. I'm willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt and accept that the administration realized (albeit too late) that billions in weapons aid to Musharraf was being used simply to prop up his regime (and rather ineptly at that), and thus that the focus of U.S. diplomatic efforts in recent weeks was aimed at averting what Musharraf has now done. I'm betting, though, that Musharraf made the following sort of calculation about the U.S.:
What are they going to do once I consolidate power? Throw me out? That could really cause chaos. The Americans support friendly secular dictators like Mubarak out of fear that democratization will bring the wrong winners. Indeed, when they pushed for elections in Lebanon and Palestine they got exactly the sort of regimes they feared. Surely the Americans have learned their lesson and won't take that gamble with a nuclear-armed state. The fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban---which are real enough forces here in Pakistan---will provide Bush with plenty of cover to say that while he would prefer free elections, he's not going to meddle, etc. etc.
This is not a new situation. Throughout the Cold War, dictators the world over used the excuse of fighting communist insurgencies as the justification for seeking (and usually receiving) U.S. support. The strategy of supporting strongmen even makes some sense, if the only real alternative is a sworn enemy that would use the levers of power to attack us. Whatever doubts one might have had that indigenous leftist groups in the second half of the 20th century were necessarily our enemies, we should have fewer such doubts with respect to Islamic radicals. (Fewer but not none. For example, despite being an Islamic theocracy and state sponsor of terrorism, Iran was reasonably cooperative in our immediate post-9/11 efforts against al Qaeda before we decided it made more sense to include the Iranians in an axis of evil that also included their own historical enemy, Iraq. But I digress.)

So supporting a dictator while holding our noses may make sense in some circumstances, but not when there is a robust liberal democratic opposition that provides a viable third way. So far, Secretary Rice has made the right noises, calling for the restoration of democracy. But in an administration that tends to marginalize its own voices of reason, it remains to be seen whether anything of consequence follows.

Posted by Mike Dorf

8 comments:

Anil Kalhan said...

I'm willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt

Well, I'm not -- precisely because I think you have it exactly right in just about everything you say here. Except for this business about Rice making the "right noises." Even assuming that were the right characterization, it's way too little too late. The time when the United States needed to be speaking up was at least six months ago, when it should have been perfectly clear to them what was at stake if they cared enough to pay attention.

But in any event, Rice's "noises" have been decidedly tepid and off-key. They seem designed only to give the public appearance of concern, to placate critics and perhaps to deflect attention from the fact that Administration officials, in the recent words of one former US diplomat, "know nothing about Pakistan." (Never mind voices of reason -- with this crowd I'd be willing to settle for voices of the reasonably not-incompetent.) The stark reality of the administration's reaction sharply belies even Rice's laconic diplospeak:

1. In Islamabad, aides to General Musharraf ... said they had anticipated that there would be few real consequences. They called the American reaction “muted,” saying General Musharraf had not received phone calls of protest from Mr. Bush or other senior American officials. In unusually candid terms, they said American officials support stability over democracy. “They would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” said Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information. “Given the choice, I know what our friends would choose.” [link]

2. A Musharraf aide told the Guardian that the Pakistani president had "satisfied" objections raised by Mr Brown during the conversation. "There was pressure from the US and Britain in the beginning. But later on, when the government gave them the detail that elections will be held on time, and the president will take off his uniform, they did not have any objections," the official said, on condition of anonymity. [link]

In the meantime, the Administration and their friends in the UK have had it entirely upside down and backwards. They're fixated on whether elections will take place -- even though Musharraf can and will easily rig them, as he has before. (Indeed, in fostering a Benazir-Musharraf deal -- which played right into Musharraf's "divide and rule" strategy -- the US and UK must have been more or less counting on rigged elections. And let's be clear, putting all of their eggs in Benazir's basket was not any better than putting them all in Musharraf's.) Elections are important, but that's not fundamentally what's at stake here. What's at stake is protecting and promoting individuals and institutions that will be the backbone of any meaningful progress towards democracy and moderation in Pakistan -- the judiciary, the lawyers, the media, and the middle classes. As Tammy Ayesha Haq was quoted in the Times, "If you want to take the country away from Talibanization these are the people who can do it, the secular middle class." [link]. Well, unfortunately those individuals are now all being sacked from their positions, arrested, and thrown in jail, where who knows what is happening to many of them. (After all, unlike Bush, Musharraf has never said "we don't torture.") And those civil society institutions are now being systematically torn asunder.

And all of it on the Bush Administration's dime.

egarber said...

I also think Musharraf probably feels that India will stay relatively quiet amid his power grab.

From VOA news:

The two neighbors have fought three wars since Pakistan was carved out of India at the end of the era of British rule. Relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbors have thawed recently and General Banerjee at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies says India is in no rush to see President Musharraf depart the stage in Pakistan.

"In recent years Musharraf was seen in India as somebody who was constructive on the critical issues between India and Pakistan and especially on Kashmir and therefore somebody that India could do business with," added Banerjee.

Michael C. Dorf said...

In response to Anil, I should say that I was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt mostly as a rhetorical matter, so there may not be any real distance between our positions. The only possible difference is that I'm not sure how much influence the U.S. administration ever had. Yes, we gave Musharraf a huge amount of money, and it's possible that insisting on protection for civil and political rights as a condition of further funding would have affected his behavior. Anil's point, I take it, is that because the administration made no such demands and gave up any chance of influence. I agree. But if, as I suspect, Musharraf's number one priority was always his own power, there are reasons to doubt that he would have responded favorably to pressure. Which is not to say that pressure shouldn't have been applied.

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

It is the holic gold which makes me very happy these days, my brother says holic money is his favorite games gold he likes, he usually holic online gold to start his game and most of the time he will win the cheap holic gold back and give me some holic online money to play the game.

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,