Since the tragic attacks of 9/11 America has had two overriding goals in its foreign policy: (1) fight global terrorism and ensure stability; (2) spread “democracy” to the world. However, there is a dichotomy inherent in any policy based around these two goals. This dichotomy is readily illustrated by the current situation in Pakistan.
For those of you who live under rocks, isolated from the world, Pakistan (which borders northwestern India and southern Afghanistan) is a predominately Muslim populated state with a history of conflict with India stemming back to the end of British colonialism and Indian independence, when the two regions split politically along mainly religious lines. For most of the latter part of the twentieth century India/Pakistan tensions led to numerous border disputes and small-scale armed conflicts as well as a late-stage nuclear arms race.
After 9/11 and the deceleration of the global war on terror (including the Afghanistan campaign) Pakistan became prominent for its other border. The ruggedly mountainous region between the home of the Taiban and Pakistan became a proving ground for Al Qeada linked terrorism. As a result America turned to Pakistan’s strong man, Pervez Musharraf who had taken power by unseating the elected prime minister in a military coup in 1999. Musharraf has talked tough on terrorism, endearing him to the hawks in the Bush administration. In response America has sent a portion of the funds allocated to the war on terror to the military of Pakistan. Though little notable progress has been made in curtailing the activities of the guerillas inhabiting the mountainous border region, billions in aid has been freely given.
During the past years Musharraf has been slowly consolidating his power base and silencing those who oppose him. Probably the most open move to shut down opposition came when Musharraf removed the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, from office. Lawyers protested the unconstitutionality of this removal and Musharraf was pressured into reinstating Chaudhry. Many believe that Muaharraf’s attempts to interfere in the affairs of the High Court of Pakistan stem from his growing unease with the independence of that institution.
The latest crises in Pakistan, of which you may have heard, is the result of Musharraf suspending the Pakistani constitution for the second time during his rule. The decision for suspension came after a private meeting with the supreme court which was prepared to rule that it would be unconstitutional for Musharraf to be president while still remaining the chief of the Army.
Messages from Pakistan are mixed as to when the constitution will be reinstated, and when elections will be held to determine the next government of Pakistan, with some officials postulating elections as previously scheduled (by the end of the year) and other suggesting that it may be one or even two years before any elections will be called.
This has put the Bush administration is something of a quandary. Bush has invested much in his relationship with Musharraf, one of America’s staunchest vocal allies in combating terrorism. Many in the administration consider Musharraf to be the only man willing and capable to combat the guerillas in the north. On the other hand Musharraf is clearly not playing by democratic rules. he is taking whatever steps are necessary to shore up his power, even invoking the threat posed by terrorist and other “extremists” to justify his means.
It is exactly here where the dichotomy of the Bush foreign policy is seen. Musharraf is seen as an effective leader in the fight against global terrorism because he is tough. Because he is tough Musharraf is willing to be undemocratic in his own country. There is no plausible way for the Bush hawks to proceed at this point. They cannot cut of aid to a man they consider our finest ally in one of our primary goals in global policy. On the other hand they cannot let his actions stand in the face of the declaration that it is our duty to lift people out of the throes of despotism into the light of democracy.
There are similar issues in the struggle to bring democracy to Iraq, especially when America is willing to overturn any democratically approved measures which we do not feel are in our best interests. You cannot have a selective democracy.
Of course Americans are losing rights left and right, and they don’t seem to care. So the Bush hawks shouldn’t worry, there won’t be any local fallout for their international snafus.
