Ominous signals from Capitol Hill
Gen Mirza Aslam Beg
It is better to be informed, than being complacent, about the reports
emanating from prestigious institutions of United States. Such reports
are taken seriously by the policy makers in Washington. These are
carefully deliberated and analysed views, deserving due consideration by
Pakistani policy makers to be able to face challenges to national
security. If these views go unchallenged, they will seriously impact the
consciousness of the Pakistani nation already suffering from economic
melt-down, political uncertainty and the agonizing sense of insecurity.
The National Intelligence Council of the US Congress in its lengthy
report, “Global Trends 2025 – Transformed World”, comments: The future
of Pakistan is a ‘wild card in considering the trajectory of
neighbouring Afghanistan’, and the New York Times, goes a step further
and predicts, break-up of Pakistan by 2025, and new boundaries to be
drawn, as the geo-political necessity, also raises the issue of
Pashtunistan: “If Pakistan is unable to hold together until 2025, a
broader coalescence of Pashtun tribes is likely to emerge and act
together to erase the Durand Line. This will maximize Pashtun space at
the expense of Punjabis in Pakistan and Tajiks and others in
Afghanistan. In this context India’s strategic plans for Afghanistan
would rely on a defector alliance, with Iran to counter the Pashtun/Pro
Pakistan forces, in the East.” Without going into any unnecessary
argument on the ideas quoted above, I would simply say that such notions
are ‘destined to be doomed’ as it has happened in the past thirty years.
For example, in 1988 Bush the Senior, declared:
“America is a rising nation. I see America as the leader, a unique
nation with a special role in the world. This has been called the
American century because in it we were the dominant force for good in
the world. We saved Europe, cured polio, went to the moon and lit the
world with our culture. Now we are on the verge of a new century. I say
it will be another American century.” Since then, every US military
misadventure in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and the present economic
and social crises have blown ‘the myth of US global primacy and
pre-eminence’ and also the notion of Greater Israel and Expanded Middle
East. Similarly the “trajectory of neighbouring Afghanistan” will find
its course as soon as the ‘Mother of all Evil’ – the occupation of
Afghanistan is vacated. Historical reality can not be repudiated;
Afghanistan cannot be conquered, no matter how militarily powerful the
occupation forces may be. It is true, history repeats itself. No doubt,
during the last thirty years Pakhtun nationalism has emerged as the
dominant force, extending from the River Indus to the Hindu Kush
mountains – the historical reality and the main determinant of peace
paradigm in the region. It is an unalterable reality, beyond the control
of Indo-Israel nexus or the Indo-American-Israel alliance. Its emergence
does not threaten the Punjabis, Sindhis or the Balochis. Rather it is a
source of strength, unity and integrity of the Pakistani nation. It is
not a wishful paradigm, but the emerging contours of a new dynamism – a
uniting factor between Pakistan and Afghanistan and realization of the
concept of Strategic Depth, as the emulative effect of betrayals that we
have experienced after USA emerged as the sole super power, ala courtesy
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Institute of International Studies, USA (IISS) makes the following
comments: “That the army ‘would step in’ despite its reluctance to do so
“having lost so much prestige during the nine years of Musharraf’s
rule.” President Zardari’s presidency may be fragile despite his
successful outmaneuvering of Nawaz Sharif as an immediate political
threat and maintaining a strong constitutional position. He is deeply
unpopular in Pakistan and has a reputation for corruption and violence,
dating back to his time as a minister in his wife’s government in 1993.
He has also made enemies within the PPP by dismissing many of those who
had been close to Bhutto.” The fundamental Pakistani army structures
have also been weakened.”
These comments deserve serious consideration, because, if true, it is
democracy which is threatened. We have the experience of four military
interventions of the past, and know ‘the Main Ingredients’ which
precipitated military take-over. These are (1) COAS’ loyalty pledge to
the political government as a ploy. (2) Pak-US military commander’s
secret contacts. (3) Military engagements to solve political issues (4)
Unpopular government, with opposition ready to support the military
government. ‘Loyalty pledge’ to the political government has been used
as a ploy. General Ayub Khan was made the defense minister in uniform on
his pledge of loyalty to the political government. General Zia pledged
loyalty, on the holy book in Multan, (in Late Sajjad Hussain Qureshi’s
library) to earn the confidence of Mr. Bhutto. General Pervez
Musharraf’s apolitical credentials earned him the confidence of the
government, although he had established strong political links. General
Kiani is apolitical and enjoys the confidence of the government. He
supported the process of democracy, by pulling out the ISI and MI, from
the election process – an act which established his credentials. US
military commanders contacts with General Ayub, Zia and Musharraf were
well-established, before their take-over. Such contacts were ‘covert in
nature.’ In the case of General Kiani, contacts have taken place
overtly, at Kabul, USS Ibraham Lincoln and Brussels. No apprehensions!
Political governments have used the ‘army to settle political issues’
with serious consequences. Under General Ayub Khan, army was used in
Balochistan in 1957 which facilitated his take-over in 1958. Bhutto gave
army a free hand in Balochistan in 1974, under General Zia, who took
over two years later. General Pervez Musharraf embarked upon the
disastrous Kargil operation in 1998 and taking advantage of American ire
on atomic explosions, toppled Nawaz Sharif’s government a year later.
General Kiani is winning battles in Swat and Bajour using the army with
unlimited powers, with licence to kill own people, which provides the
‘incentive to kill the constitution and throttle democracy.’ A dangerous
drift, which must transform into dialogue and political approach. The
Army is predisposed to preserve the democratic structure and safeguard
the Constitution. It has experienced the pitfalls of interventions of
the past – an advantage which the political government must avail to
protect the democratic order.
‘The Political Movements’, in Pakistan invariably have produced
dictators, which is a unique politico-military phenomenon of Pakistan.
In 1968, the movement against Ayub Khan, led by Asghar Khan and Bhutto,
produced Yahya Khan. General Zia was catapulted to power in 1977 by the
PNA political movement against Bhutto government. With the support of
the political movement under PPP, named GDA and the American displeasure
for 1998 atomic explosions, it was easy for General Musharraf to topple
Nawaz Sharif government in 1999.
Under the present situation, even an American nod will not be necessary
to start a “movement, which is waiting on the wings, of lawyers, the
media and the civil society,” yet Army take-over will not be welcome
because PPP will be antagonized and political support by PML(N) will not
be forthcoming as they carry the bitter experience of the past. Who else
will provide such a support? None, I suppose, not even Q-League. This is
a positive sign, providing time and space to Zardari and his government,
to correct things where wrong. The civil society movement is the most
important phenomenon of today’s socio-political struggle. In dealing
with the civil society, the government must show discretion and
perseverance.Democracy requires patience and commitment to accepting the
verdict of the people. If a government does not come up to its
expectations, the people have the right to change it. There is self-correctiveness
implicit in the democratic process, and the political parties despite
their differences must tolerate each other and not let the system be
derailed.
An incident I would like to narrate to prove the point: Early October
1999, FRIENDS delegation was visiting Germany at the invitation of Hanns
Seidel Foundation. On 11th October, we were in Berlin, invited to dinner
by our Pakistani friends. I spoke to them at length, about the civil
military relations, and in answer to a question I said “one more mistake
and Nawaz Sharif government will be gone.” Next evening, 12 October 99
when we returned late to our hotel, the lobby was swarming with media,
wanting to know from me, “how I knew that, one mistake and Nawaz Sharif
will be gone.” I said, “living across the road, I knew what was cooking
inside the Army House’” but that was not enough. I had to do a lot of
explaining. But I made it very explicit that it should not have happened
and the military will not relinquish power so easily and once again, it
will be a long painful experience of military regime, the Pakistani
nation will suffer from. It was bad for the nation. It was bad, because
the verdict of 17th August 88, by the three Services Chiefs, was so
blatantly violated. The situation, today is muddled, yet, we don’t have
to get disturbed by such reports emanating from the US Congress, the
IISS or any other source. These should be taken as warnings also being
used as pressure tactics to extract concessions from the government.
The real strength of the government lies in the people and the
parliament. The government has to learn, to invest in them and earn
their respect. USA has exposed itself and there is a clear realization
that USA is playing a sinister game of destabilizing Pakistan, while
developing new ‘friendship’ with India to support the strategic
objectives of keeping its forces in Afghanistan and extend power and
influence to control events in the regions of Central Asian States,
Iran, China and Russia. But such ambitions are not based on solid
realities. Vaclav Havel of Czech Republic, advocates: “It is my profound
belief that there is only one way to achieve [harmony between reason and
conscience]…, we must divest ourselves our egoistic anthropocentricism,
our habit of seeing ourselves as masters of the universe, who can do
whatever occurs to us. We must discover a new respect for what
transcends us, for the universe, for the earth, for nations, for life
and for reality. |
