Pakistan’s Twist of Fate

The last significant event of 2007 turned out to be a tragic one. On Thursday, December 27th, former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated following a campaign rally for her Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). There has been some confusion about whether she was killed by gunfire or by a following suicide bomb. Twenty of her supporters were also killed in the attack.

President Pervez Musharraf, the military leader of Pakistan since 1999, only recently relinquished his power over the country’s army. His leadership in Pakistan has been a catch-22 in the American efforts against al Qaeda. Though he has been an ally in the war on terror, he has also stifled democratic reform in his own country. Foreign policy analysts are placed in the classical pragmatism-versus-idealism dilemma when dealing with Musharraf. There are many extremist elements in Pakistan, and large areas in the rural, mountainous regions are under very little government control. Musharraf has shown initiative in fighting against extremists, such as those that holed up in the Red Mosque.(1) This resulted in al Qaeda calling for a jihad against Musharraf.(2) If the enemy of our enemy is our friend, surely Musharraf is a friend.

The dark side of Musharraf is very dark. He came to power via a military coup d’etat in 1999, not exactly the path to power American liberal democrats would prefer. The conflict with India over Kashmir continues. In November of 2007, he “declared a state of emergency… suspending the country’s Constitution, firing the chief justice of the Supreme Court and filling the streets of this capital city with police officers.”(3) Benazir Bhutto was placed under house arrest.(4) Following an assassination attempt in October, she complained that Musharraf was not doing enough to protect her from extremists.(5) It appeares that Musharraf did not lift a finger to prevent Bhutto’s death. Now, the planned January elections are threatened.(6)

Bhutto, for her part, was no saint. She had already been prime minister twice, but she lost power in a swarm of corruption allegations. Claims of illegal activities dogged Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, throughout her political career. If the evidence exposed in a Swiss investigation is to be believed, there appear to have been some real shenanigans going on.(7) It should not be forgotten that Bhutto initially supported the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, though she later repented of that mistake. In fact, the Taliban may have been behind the assassination. The United States considers Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban leader, “a leading suspect.”(8)

As abhorent as supporting the Taliban might seem to us today, in the 1990s there was an incentive for Pakistan to prefer a strong, stable government in Afghanistan. According to Richard Clarke,

Kabul and other cities were destroyed in the civil war, forcing huge refugee flows into Pakistan on top of those who had fled there during the long war with the Soviets. Pakistani intelligence, whom we had empowered in Afghanistan, used its power and influence to bring order out of chaos through a new religious faction, the Taliban.(9)

Pakistan needed somebody to fill the power vaccum created when the Soviets withdrew. The Taliban was more than willing to take over. Like many foreign policy decisions that turn out badly, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Despite this skeleton in Bhutto’s closet, she would probably have been as strong an ally in the war against terror as Musharraf has been. At the very least, she was the enemy of our enemy. Had she been elected for a third time as prime minister, her democratic legitimacy would have given her a finer pedigree than Musharraf.

Now was the time for Benazir Bhutto. Though Musharraf’s anti-democracy is anathema to the West, there was major concern that anti-American sentiment might manifest itself in the Pakistani electorate. What kind of leader would Pakistanis elect? Although we liberals like to put our faith in the people to choose their own destiny, the spectre of a nuclear armed country controled by anti-American religious extremists is enough to put our convictions to the test. Bhutto provided an attractive alternative. Democracy could have been the answer to religious extremism instead of the empowerment of it. As Christopher Hitchens put it: “Of those preparing to contest the highly dubious upcoming elections, she was the only candidate with anything approaching a mass appeal to set against the siren calls of the fundamentalists.”(10)

Now she is dead.

I highly doubt that Musharraf was involved in her death, though he probably shed no tears, either. It seems more likely to me that it was either the work of al Qaeda or some of the home-grown Pakistani fundamentalists that she opposed. Had she been elected, they had the most to lose. Musharraf’s reaction to the assassination will prove decisive to the immediate future of Pakistan. If the country has any hopes for democracy, they hang by a thread, and the thread is tied to Pervez Musharraf’s thumb.

Three primary issues in Pakistan must be watched closely in the coming months. First, will democratic elections proceed? The United States needs Pakistan to be an ally. It is possible that Osama bin Laden is moving between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our best hope of capturing or killing him lies with Pakistan, but without democratic elections, our idealistic rhetoric looks fraudulent. Second, who will control the nukes? If an unfriendly regime comes to power in Islamabad, what assurances do we have that nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of terrorists, or that nuclear technology will not find its way to Iran? In that event the United States would have to work with the IAEA to pressure Pakistan to allow oversight of its arsenal. Third, will Pakistan continue to be an ally against al Qaeda? If not, not only will our hopes of capturing bin Laden evaporate, Pakistan may become the next haven for terrorists.

In addition to these concerns, India must worry about Kashmir.

It appears that Benazir’s 19-year-old son, Bilawal, will be the nominal leader of the PPP, with her disreputable husband as co-chair and de facto leader.(11) In photos, Bilawal looks like a scared kid, a deer in the headlights. I wonder if he is feeling the same emotions that his mother felt when her father was executed. If Pakistan is looking for a strong leader, it is not Bilawal. If it is looking for a trustworthy leader, it is not Zardari. There are many American interests at stake in Pakistan, but there is much more at stake for the Pakistanis. Their future of self-determination hangs in the balance. The rule of law and civility is contending with the rage of extremism and terror. All we can do at this point is hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

© 2007 Bryan Lower

Feedback: