A long time ago, Otto von Bismarck once referred to the Balkans as the 'Powderkeg of Europe.' I fear we are overlooking the fact that our 'ally' Pakistan is fast becoming the powderkeg of the Middle East/South Asia. In thinking about Benazir Bhutto's unfortunate death, it seems we as Americans have a good opportunity to more carefully consider our relationship with Pakistan.
Many seem to forget that modern Pakistan is a dangerous place, led by a dangerous man, with a dangerous set of resources. President Pervez Musharraf's actions over the past few months demonstrate how dangerous he can be. It is one thing to discuss the theoretical aspects of suspending a country's constitution and government and suspending free media to fight "extremism." It is entirely another matter when a leader does so. A Presidential Executive Order can suspend our own government in the United States, and it has been used in our history. Few would entirely agree with Abraham Lincoln's decisions to exercise this power during the Civil War. Even fewer would agree with FDR's decision to sequester over 100,000 Japanese-Americans into detainment camps during World War II. However, the major contrast between these unfortunate actions and what has transpired in Pakistan over the past few months is that the latter notion is being led by a leader who had displayed an ability to dispassionately suspend what semblage of democracy may exist in his country and rule by martial law, quietly rattling the sabre of an impressive atomic arsenal. The cowboy diplomacy exhibited by the United States, when coupled with our fickle disposition toward alliances in the Middle East is likely to lead to very bad results if the relationship were to sour. Over the past six years, we have concentrated on chasing a handful of extremists through the badlands of Afghanistan and entrenched ourselves into a war of Vietnamese proportions in Iraq. However, all the while we have maintained a dangerous alliance with a leader who, of all the forces in the Middle East and South Asia, is the one we should perhaps be most concerned about? Recent events in Pakistan, which now include the death of Musharraf's most powerful and charismatic opponent, give one pause to consider just how seriously we should treat this friendship of convenience that the United States is maintaining.
Benazir Bhutto was by no means perfect. Her own tenure as prime minister of Pakistan was marred by corruption and her human rights record leaves much to be desired. However, her value in more recent times comes from the fact that she counterbalanced Musharraf and was a catalyst for positive political and social change in a country that very much needs it. Now that she is gone, it is unlikely that one as insightful or as sympathetic to principles of democracy as Benazir herself will step into the fray to challenge Musharraf. Whether Musharraf will use this tragedy as a pretext for imposing further methods of martial law on his people remains to be seen, but it is certainly not unlikely. Most American's cared little about our deal making in the Middle East before 11 September 2001. Six years on, most Americans are caught up more in patriotic hoopla than any measured analysis to our relationship with the rest of the world. In the meantime, we have buddied up with a leader who has greater capabilities than many of his counterparts in the region, the same we are waging war against. The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach has not served us well in the Middle East over the past forty years. It may be prudent to rethink that approach.
It behooves us not to alienate this ‘friend’ that we have made. It would be most unfortunate if we were to turn our back on a friend of convenience who, of all the powers in the Middle East, has an openly known ability to seriously vex with the United States.
Many seem to forget that modern Pakistan is a dangerous place, led by a dangerous man, with a dangerous set of resources. President Pervez Musharraf's actions over the past few months demonstrate how dangerous he can be. It is one thing to discuss the theoretical aspects of suspending a country's constitution and government and suspending free media to fight "extremism." It is entirely another matter when a leader does so. A Presidential Executive Order can suspend our own government in the United States, and it has been used in our history. Few would entirely agree with Abraham Lincoln's decisions to exercise this power during the Civil War. Even fewer would agree with FDR's decision to sequester over 100,000 Japanese-Americans into detainment camps during World War II. However, the major contrast between these unfortunate actions and what has transpired in Pakistan over the past few months is that the latter notion is being led by a leader who had displayed an ability to dispassionately suspend what semblage of democracy may exist in his country and rule by martial law, quietly rattling the sabre of an impressive atomic arsenal. The cowboy diplomacy exhibited by the United States, when coupled with our fickle disposition toward alliances in the Middle East is likely to lead to very bad results if the relationship were to sour. Over the past six years, we have concentrated on chasing a handful of extremists through the badlands of Afghanistan and entrenched ourselves into a war of Vietnamese proportions in Iraq. However, all the while we have maintained a dangerous alliance with a leader who, of all the forces in the Middle East and South Asia, is the one we should perhaps be most concerned about? Recent events in Pakistan, which now include the death of Musharraf's most powerful and charismatic opponent, give one pause to consider just how seriously we should treat this friendship of convenience that the United States is maintaining.
Benazir Bhutto was by no means perfect. Her own tenure as prime minister of Pakistan was marred by corruption and her human rights record leaves much to be desired. However, her value in more recent times comes from the fact that she counterbalanced Musharraf and was a catalyst for positive political and social change in a country that very much needs it. Now that she is gone, it is unlikely that one as insightful or as sympathetic to principles of democracy as Benazir herself will step into the fray to challenge Musharraf. Whether Musharraf will use this tragedy as a pretext for imposing further methods of martial law on his people remains to be seen, but it is certainly not unlikely. Most American's cared little about our deal making in the Middle East before 11 September 2001. Six years on, most Americans are caught up more in patriotic hoopla than any measured analysis to our relationship with the rest of the world. In the meantime, we have buddied up with a leader who has greater capabilities than many of his counterparts in the region, the same we are waging war against. The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach has not served us well in the Middle East over the past forty years. It may be prudent to rethink that approach.
It behooves us not to alienate this ‘friend’ that we have made. It would be most unfortunate if we were to turn our back on a friend of convenience who, of all the powers in the Middle East, has an openly known ability to seriously vex with the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment