Title: Clinton's message
to Pakistan
Author: M.B. Naqvi
Publication: Dawn, Karachi
Date: April 9, 2000
THE people of Pakistan
had better concentrate on what Bill Clinton said and how he said it on
TV. What he may have told in private to Gen. Musharraf is less relevant.
The US president chose to speak to the people of Pakistan directly and
whatever his personal motivation, he came off as an earnest well-wisher
of Pakistan.
What he said, cliche
or not, deserves to be pondered over and acted upon either in clear defiance
of what he wished them to do or in accordance with it what he advised.
There is no way of fudging the issue or muddling through it; a clear choice
has to be made one way or another.
That Pakistan is between
the devil and the deep sea goes without saying. But it is not due to anything
the Americans did; we ourselves are largely responsible for what afflicts
us today. Which Pakistanis is one accusing? There was the bureaucratic-military
coterie of about half a dozen people in the early 1950s who subverted democracy
and prevented its free functioning. It took over the country in 1958 under
martial law, in the early part of which the military established its supremacy
over the civilians. The martial law may have lasted only four years but
the Ayub regime went on for much longer. It nurtured the East Pakistan
crisis.
The denouement of the
doings of that ruling coterie could be seen in the shape of the 1971 tragedy.
Indeed, many would say that the coterie was also responsible for the eleven
years of Gen. Ziaul Haq's regime that created all manner of troubles as
also for the destabilization of democracy that was restored in 1988 right
down to another military takeover on October 12 last year.
Supporters of the military-bureaucratic
coterie think that all politicians in Pakistan are corrupt as well as incompetent,
and that common Pakistanis are not fit to govern themselves efficiently
and require guidance. This philosophy has guided all the dictators and
most Pakistanis now prefer to call the elite groups the 'establishment.'
Indeed, a better term would be 'political class.' It includes all incumbent
and would-be MNAs, MPAs, Senators and senior bureaucrats and top echelons
of business, finance, trade and a few successful professionals. This has
been the view of authoritarian rulers and their supporters and those who
believe in it have been the denigrators of democracy. There are many such
people in important spheres of life and some in and around the current
military regime.
There is a relatively
small segment of rational, humanistic and democratic opinion which disputes
this and holds the political class as a whole to be responsible for the
mess Pakistan is in. They are fiercely opposed by the politically splintered
but ideologically convergent right-wing orthodox religious parties and
groups, which on the whole remain closely allied with, and are supporters
of, authoritarian rulers. Some of them conditionally support the Musharraf
regime - if it enforces Shariat. These include Maulana Fazalur Rehman's
JUI, the patron-saint of the Taliban. This is the political geography of
Pakistan.
What is unmistakable
is the fact that Pakistan has been ruled by the same political class -
whether in a nominal democracy or under military-bureaucratic regimes.
Under them a culture of dependence has grown. Pakistan has developed on
the basis of foreign aid and when foreign assistance became relatively
small compared to the government's needs, its development has suffered.
The result has been that its non-productive expenditures, mainly debt servicing
and defence, have gone on increasing while social sectors have been neglected.
The fact of the matter now is that this sort of thing cannot go on. This
has got to change.
President Bill Clinton
has assured us of all the American support provided we fulfil the four
conditions he has laid down. These are: restoration of democracy; restraint
in the manufacture, development, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons
and missiles; respect for the Line of Control in Kashmir; and resumption
of dialogue with India.
Before one goes into
the details of these, it has to be clarified that situated as Pakistan's
political class is, it has no option but to accept all the four conditions
if it does want American goodwill of the kind that would help Pakistan
politically and economically in the present crisis situation. There may
be other options but they are not available to the present establishment
that rules the roost. So, why talk about them?
The question is if the
economy cannot remain viable and goes into default either during 2000-01
or in fiscal year 2001-02, it will create conditions in which the survival
of the state may become a problem. The choice is Islamabad government's.
It is a Hobson's choice and perhaps the last chance to continue along the
familiar path.
Restoration of democracy
implies a lot of difficult things. Mr Clinton seems to have ignored the
difficulties of a general in control of the state's governing apparatus.
He has to find for himself a safe way out of this involvement. In particular,
he needs to have all the acts of his government, including the takeover
of power - clearly an extra constitutional act - duly indemnified. How
can anyone expect the military in Pakistan - which is the true ruler rather
than just one general - to relinquish power and go back to barracks leaving
everything in a mess?
Even the holding of polls
to the national and provincial assemblies is not possible until the generals
are sure who will emerge from these polls and whether the ones likely to
come to power will grant the required indemnity - for all the military
and civil officers who are now conducting the business of governance. This
is a challenge that the political class has to meet for enabling the generals
to pull out - a manoeuvre that generals have always found hard to execute
successfully.
Nuclear restraint is
urged by the Americans and most other people of the world. But the ruling
classes of India and Pakistan are both united in opposing it. Both are
committed to maintain a nuclear deterrent that is nominally minimal but
has also to be credible and effective - a prescription for a continuing
nuclear arms race.
Respect for the LoC and
resumption of dialogue can be grouped together and treated as one subject
dealing with 'terrorism.' Indians remain firm that they will not start
talking to Pakistan until it stops across-the-border Jihad. Respect the
for LoC means stoppage of all manner of Jihad and also depends on Pakistan
opting for normal relations with India and negotiating with it a settlement
of all bilateral problems in an ambience of peace, economic cooperation
and free trade.
The Americans also include
under the rubric of terrorism Pakistan using its influence with the Taliban
in a way that may discourage their extremism and of their friends in Afghanistan.
In addition, it should result in securing the custody of Osama bin Laden
and some others wanted by Americans for trial.
The fact of the matter
is that the Americans take exactly the same view on the general question
of terrorism as does the BJP-led government in New Deli. That Americans
are no longer honest brokers but are largely partisan in the view of a
large section of Pakistani establishment is something that has to be reckoned
with. Given our dependence syndrome - we need a large amount of cash from
the IMF or at least its promise of $ 500 million before June 30 next and
a new agreement with the IMF offering a larger amount under the nominal
title of anti-poverty agreement.
It is to be clearly understood
that Pakistan will have to rely mainly on the peaceful efforts of the Kashmiris
to project and secure support for their grievances and on the reaction
of international opinion, both of which will have to make an impact on
the Indian politics and government.
The jihad since then
has brought India and Pakistan face to face with the prospect of a 'limited
war' that can scarcely remain as limited as implied or wished for and in
which the nuclear dimension is likely to be occasioned. That would be an
unwinnable situation for both India and Pakistan. Both are required to
walk back from the precipice. But would they? At any rate, they do not
know how. Track III diplomacy of Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace
and Democracy and Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) could perhaps show the
way if only the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad will heed.
