Musharraf: How Good an Ally?
By Dr Khan Dawood L. Khan
Chicago, IL

Questions are often raised as to how good and reliable is President Musharraf as a US ally?
The Atlantic Monthly has published in its December 2006 issue the results of a survey it took of some 40 foreign-policy experts in the US, including Ken Adelman, Samuel Berger, Daniel Blumenthal, Stephen Bosworth, Warren Christopher, Richard Clarke, William Cohen, Jay Garner, Leslie Gelb, Marc Grossman, Gary Hart, Joseph Nye, Ken Pollack, Wendy Sherman and Anthony Zinni, to name some of the more prominent. They were asked just two questions, and though not all of them answered both, the results didn’t come as a surprise.
1. How should Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf be viewed in the US?
A great majority (68%) of them thought of him “as a partner who is not always helpful, but is at least as good as the likely alternatives.” Around this consensus, opinion varied. Some of these people recognize that he is “walking a tight rope,” keeping a balance between co-operating with the US in anti-terrorism efforts without undermining his own position and the stability of his government. He faces tremendous internal pressure and threats from many local sources, including Islamist extremists, and the military that may be “sympathetic” to these groups. Others thought he is “deeply flawed,” but his successor is “unlikely to be Thomas Jefferson.” There was also a feeling that, though better than the alternatives, he needs to be pressed on opening up the political process, or else “our alternatives will get worse and worse.”
About a quarter (23%) of those polled thought he is “unwilling to crack down on the militants” unless US pressure is ‘stepped up’. Some thought Pakistan has made the world “a distinctly less safe,” given the soft-glove treatment to the nuclear scientist Dr. A. Q. Khan’s role in spreading nuclear technology to other countries. The fact that Osama bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri are still at large is believed to be a result of ‘lack of co-operation’. There is also a belief that he is “no Ataturk” and that Islamists are getting stronger in his regime, despite his claims.
Less than one-tenth polled (9%) see him as “an active and indispensable ally” in the US anti-terrorism efforts. They acknowledge he is “not perfect,” but appreciate “how much he has delivered” so far even though “the US has a history of walking away from Pakistan” afterwards. This history, they believe, is “always in the Pakistani mind.”
2. What type of Government is most likely to eventually replace Musharraf’s?
Again, a strong majority (63%) think it would be a military dictatorship – one that may be “far more tolerant of jihadists,” “too deeply entrenched” to allow a civilian rule, and would “[listen] even less to the US.” Some feel that many in the military are “Islamists themselves,” with less allied with the US or the West. This, they also feel, would make the region “far more dangerous.”
Less than quarter (22%) of those surveyed think that there might be a ‘democratic governance’, but existing “at the pleasure of the military,” with its constraints, and democracy with “significant Islamist representation.”
Just one in six experts (15%) thinks it would be an “Islamist theocracy,” because, unlike the government, Islamists have been promising “salvation” to the public. Military may “suppress” the extremists, but could also easily join them.
Overall, to the extent that the consensus among these experts reflects the opinion in the US, the cooperation offered by Musharraf’s Pakistan to the US anti-terrorism efforts seems to be in considerable doubt.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.