The Washington Post reports that the U.S. may have misled its Allies into thinking that North Korea was actively helping build a new nuclear weapons state (Libya) instead of simply supplying an existing one (Pakistan):
In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.
But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride — which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium — to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.
Pakistan’s role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington’s partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. In addition, a North Korea-Pakistan transfer would not have been news to the U.S. allies, which have known of such transfers for years and viewed them as a business matter between sovereign states.
Of course, this may shed light on exactly what some of Condoleezza Rice’s OTHER business was on her trip to India and East Asia.
In an effort to repair the damage, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is traveling through East Asia this weekend trying to get the six-nation talks back on track. The impasse was expected to dominate talks today in Seoul and then Beijing, which wields the greatest influence with North Korea.
And let’s end with the obligatory conclusion,
“The administration is giving Pakistan a free ride when they don’t deserve it and hurting U.S. interests at the same time,” said Charles L. Pritchard, who was the Bush administration’s special envoy for the North Korea talks until August 2003.
FWIW, the Pakistani’s aren’t exactly of the opinion that Musharaff isn’t doing enough for the US –
vinod:
Tens of thousands ? Same old, same old–Not. This is really not an impressive crowd for a South Asian rally.
Which is to say, the General’s hold on power is quite secure. Americans ought not to be frightened by the ‘apres moi’ nightmares on offer by the General and his minions.
Kumar
General’s hold on power is quite secure
Yeah, until he gets shot by an ISI agent, someone from the military, an Islamist, or a random lunatic/fanatic.
saurav:
It’s certainly possible the general may meet with an unfortunate accident, though I would rate that as rather lower than you.
And then? The Pakistani military will still be in charge of Pakistan. And much more likely than not, Pakistani politics will still be governed by America, Allah & the Army. That was the implication of my dismissal of ‘apres moi’ scenarios about Pakistan.
Kumar
>>It’s certainly possible the general may meet with an unfortunate accident, though I would rate that as rather lower than you.
Actually, there have already been 3 assassination attempts on Mushie to date –
Assassination attempts are a cost of doing business if you want to run Pakistan– look at who you’re dealing with. Compare against the assassination attempts against the previous dictators and prime ministers of every political stripe.
This in no way absolves Musharraf of the shit he’s pulling with nuke prolif and terrorism. The whole argument is a red herring. This guy backed the guys who opened fire on India’s Parliament.
>>This in no way absolves Musharraf of the shit he’s pulling with nuke prolif and terrorism
Yep… Pakistan could eventually be to the War on Terror what Stalin’s USSR was to WWII. A lemon on many many fronts but one whom we have little choice but to try and squeeze a bit of lemonade out of.
I don’t get the passive approach given that he’s sitting on the U.S.’ #1 most wanted and milking it for aid.
Passive?
Passive?
Passive?
Passive?
My point isn’t that Pakistan is perfect. They’re far from it. But that fact that Mushie is / has risked death here is a sign that he’s far from simply “passive”. KSM – the highest ranking Al Qaeda suspect captured to date – was nabbed by the Pakistani’s.
And then? The Pakistani military will still be in charge of Pakistan. And much more likely than not, Pakistani politics will still be governed by America, Allah & the Army.
Therein lies the problem. Musharraf is sort of Clintonesque in his ability to pander to the U.S. while not having allowed Pakistan to become rabidly Islamist (policywise). I tend to doubt that you’re going to be able to sustain the balance between “America” and the mean version of “Allah” that a lot of fanaticists subscribe to once Musharraf is gone (and perhaps even before he’s overthrown/killed/dies). Further, the longer he’s in power placating Bush, the greater the eventual fury of Islamists when he’s finally gone.
I mean, the siutation you’re describing sounds like Egypt under Sadat in the sense that the strongman sees himself with a choice between placating the Islamist fanaticists or cracking down on them. It didn’t work out that well in the long run for Sadat, the fanaticists, or everyone else (well, except Al Qaeda).
The assassination attempts are totally orthogonal– he would’ve had those no matter what his policies given the violent fundies he’s dealing with. Nothing short of a Taliban-style Islamocracy would appease those groups.
The fact that most Al Qaeda leadership is concentrated in Pakistan is prima facia evidence that Musharraf is a sponsor of terror. That’s the precise reason why Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was in Pakistan in the first place.
Just last year, his nuke scientists were caught proliferating to bad actors. Yesterday it was reported they not only sold fissile materials, but also offered nearly turnkey instructions for fabrication to North Korea, Iran and Libya. And his support for cross-border terrorism in India (Delhi attack, Kashmir) is legion.
Musharraf is not actually interested in solving the problem– he’s just trying to stay in power. Every day we support him is a day closer to a nuclear attack in New York with Pakistani provenance. Every day we support him is another day that our support of democracy is made into a lie.
oh, but it makes my “happy-no-no-place” fairly sing when manish and vinod go at it. yummy smart brown boys. 😀
p.s. not that it’s a comment on vinod’s mad skillz whatsoever, but i’m with his indignant opponent on this one.
Here’s the catch – I actually agree with much of this. Probably not so much on degree (a Pak nuke in NYC? Pakistan merely “sitting” on Bin Laden? seems a bit far fetched). But I do agree on direction (yep, Pakistan is far less democratic than either Afghanistan or Iraq right now).
Like I said before, on many fronts, a deal with Mushie for the War on Terror is quite akin to a deal with Stalin against the Nazi’s – eerily particularly on your arg about taking a path closer to Nukes in NYC.
Yep, it comes across as hypocritical, two-faced, and duplicitous but in the Real World, getting one problem solved often requires setting aside another one – at least for the moment. (Pakistani elections in ’07?)
If we actively antagonized Pakistan to the degree that would make you happy, then perhaps KSM — Al Qaeda’s #1 operational planner — would likely not only be running free but might even have more resources to throw towards his next project.
As they say, often in life but particularly in international relations, the choice isn’t between Good and Bad, but between Bad and Worse. And our options with Pakistan certainly fit this bill.
I understand your argument, but I don’t buy it– where’s the evidence? Right now Pakistan is blocking U.S. troops from pursuing Al Qaeda into its border areas. There’s saber-rattling going on over this between the U.S. Army and Pakistan’s ISI. So Pakistan is helping only with its arm twisted, it’s blocking us from getting bin Laden and it’s actively making the prolif problem worse.
And there’s no way there are going to be elections for positions with real power– Musharraf’s already made that clear by refusing to renounce his army post, canceling elections, dismissing the judiciary and rewriting the Pakistani constitution to support his command. He’s just the latest in a long line of Pakistani strongmen.
The choice isn’t between Bad and Worse, that’s Simplistic. It’s between Band-Aid and Cure.
Musharraf is doing a better job in helping the US in the war against terror than any democratically elected Pakistani leader will be able to. Most of the Al Qaeda biggies have been caught in Pakistan which means two things (1) they were allowed to operate from there in the first place and (2) the welcome mat has been rolled back. If Pakistan had a democratically elected PM, he would be less of a help to the US in Waziristan and other Pushtun areas than Musharraf is. Musharraf is atleast making an attempt to crack down on the Jihadis ( hence the assasination attempts) If Musharraf was replaced by a leader who was accountable to the people, he will have to take an anti US stance to stay in power and get elected in the first place. On a side note in the last state democratic election in Pakistan in NWFP, the Islamic Parties won an overwhelming majority. ( Of course the PPP and Muslim League are not strong players there and are leaderless)
Troops yes. But this is true of most countries – even ones where we’ve got bases. But the CIA, Spec Ops, and FBI? – sounds like they’ve got a lot of latitude.
You’re arguing that we should be trying to “Cure” Pakistan and while calling me simplistic? 😉
Yes. ‘It’s hard work’ isn’t an argument.
By not catching bin Laden and refusing to mention his name in public, we are totally squandering U.S. credibility. Israel killed 10 of the 11 guys behind the Munich massacre— that’s what should we should’ve done by now.
Mushy is managing “delivery” of Al Queda to US.
How hard is it to find an African person in Gujaranwala ?? really, those who believe that Pak is sincere in catching Al Queda for US … I have a bridge for sale !!!
You can check the archives at talkingpointsmemo.com or thenation.com to verify above.
Pakistani dictators have always used the ‘if you dethrone me fundies will control pakistan’ bogey to entrench themselves. zia ul haq did that before and musharaff is doing now. It’s like a store having ‘going out of business’ sale for the past 20 years.
I think it is in India’s interest to have the radical Islamists MMA come to power! Thy Islamists are even more anti US than anti India.US will find it difficult to deal with this regime. A couple of attacks on US targets in Pakistan later,Pakistan will be isolated and sanctioned heavily by the international community and that will be to India’s advantage. Right now, Musharraf is perceived as a ally in the war on terror against Al Qaeda.We know that in actuality he and Pakistan have not changed their spots on Kashmir. With the Islamists in power,Pakistan will not co-operate on the US war on terror .No chance of Pakistan getting F16 and good bye to US dollars. With a few pushes and nudges by RAW and IB (I know is asking a lot for RAW and IB to be competent , but let’s be opimistic) towards the Baluchis and Sindhis,there could be civil war in Pakistan.Pakistan will be on the road to implosion.In the long run, we can control a truncated Pakistani Punjab easliy .Independent Sindh and Bacluchistan too would be useful to us for sourcing energy from the Middle East. I am not one of those who subscribes to ” A stable pakistan is good for India ” nonsense.A stabe Pakistan will be more of a nuisance to us than 5-6 small states whcih we can control indirectly. I know this may seem fanciful, but Pakistan is an artificial state and will disintegrate.For India the sooner it happens the better. To all the naysayers, I say : the Soviet empire, a superpower disintegrated.Pakistan’s days are numbered.
vinod, manish:
Interesting discussion. But I find Vinod’s argument about the wisdom of American policy toward Pakistan unpersuasive.
First, about whether the General is under threat. Manish is probably right that those asassination attempts would have taken place regardless of the degree to which the General cooperates with America.
Second, and more importantly, I don’t wish to deny that Pakistani cooperation hasn’t yielded benefits to America. It’s simply my contention that the price of such cooperation will be far more costly than the American govt. thinks.
And the price will be more fully paid by India, and if things become especially grim, perhaps even by America.
Pakistan is not a ‘status quo’ regime. It wishes to change its neighborhood for a number of reasons. The fawning over the General obscures this reality.
Kumar
I find it interesting that the original article was about the deliberate misuse of WMD intelligence by the Bush administration in order to once again mislead and sway allies into pursuing foreign policy objectives. This post/article is only tangentially about Pakistan, security policy, foreign relations, nuclear proliferation, or the trade-offs being made in the so-called “War on Terror” (I would rather have a war on Al-Qaeda or terrorists).
If I were of a less charitable disposition, I would venture that Vinod had successfully removed attention from the main argument and led us all down the garden path into a tangential and academic argument. As usual, there were the usual flourishes about what happens in “the Real World”, the “practicalities” of war, and false dichotomies like Bad vs. Worse which obfuscate Good vs. Bad (remember Good?). He has learned well from his conservative political masters.
So, while I’m down the garden path, I’ll begin as you did, FWIW (for what it’s worth, and I assure it wasn’t much).
Every single time the US government has intefered with or placated dictatorships or authoritarian governments to pursue short-term self-interested regional policy objectives it has come back to bite us in the ass. It seems that when we begin by making “Bad vs. Worse” decisions, the results of those decisions are also either bad or worse, never good.
The list is endless and spans the globe. To name but a few: Batista, Papa Doc, Chiang Kai-shek, Mohd. Reza Pahlavi (who’s father, incidentally, led a pro-Nazi regime), George Papadopoulos, Gamal Abdel Nasser, King Fahd, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Muqtada al-Sadr, the list goes on and arguably already includes Musharraf (not to mention Gaddafi). Good will and good intentions may lead to bad outcomes, but sleeping with the devil
Your simplistic allusions to Game Theory (which you probably don’t fully understand) and the folly that was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) do not lend you any support. Adapting Game Theory (which is a mathematical/economic/social approach to examining direct and strategic human interaction) to political science has arguable merits. But it does tend to get wobbly when dealing with suicidal terrorist because they don’t make rational “economic” decisions.
When you casually mention Game Theory, you probably just mean “being between a rock and a hard place,” or “having to make a tough decision,” and hope to appear more knowing. You’ve also thoroughly misunderstood Kantian and utilitarian ethics, but I can’t expect any less from someone who gets their philosophy from “Sophie’s World”.
A last comment on MAD. To say that MAD gave us 50 years of relative peace is the height of self-deception. MAD is directly to blame for the current instability with WMD. Not only did it lead to the exponential growth in the nuclear arsenal and hence increase the amount of fissile material in existence, it left the world dangerously exposed to nuclear threat when the Soviet Union fell apart and all of a sudden a bunch of seventeen-year-olds in army uniforms were left guarding nuclear sites. It is that material and technological know-how that was built-up during the MAD ol’ days and which was left unsecured for so many years that now threatens us the most. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran are only the latest culprits, the sons of MAD and the fruits of sins committed in the “Real World” while making “Bad vs. Worse” decisions.
Deceiving key partners and allies to bully them into action and overlooking Pakistan’s crimes won’t even begin to solve the problem.
Saurav:
“….I tend to doubt that you’re going to be able to sustain the balance between “America” and the mean version of “Allah” that a lot of fanaticists subscribe to once Musharraf is gone….the strongman sees himself with a choice between placating the Islamist fanaticists or cracking down on them…”
I’m afraid I don’t share your view of battling strongmen and fanatics. Pakistani govt. policy created these very groups and uses them to further its perceived strategic interests. The ire of some fanatics with the General’s tactical maneuvering doesn’t undercut that point. It only goes to show their naivete.
With or without the General, the Pakistani establishment (the Corps Commanders, the ISI and the ‘feudal’ gentry) rules. And without the General, it will still be dominated by those who think Pakistan’s interest lies in changing the status quo in S. Asia.
Which is to say, the Pakistani establishment excelled at Clintonesque ‘triangulation’ even before Clinton was on the scene–hell, before he was born! So no, I don’t think that triangulating between Allah, America and Army will pose insuperable difficulties for the Pakistani establishment, even post-the General. The pursuit of their perceived national interest necessitates such triangulation.
Kumar
Funny you should use the 1972 Munich Massacre example of what we should do –
Israel used spec ops, not full military invasion of Italy/Germany/etc to get the perps — exactly what we’re doing in Pakistan
the Munich Massacre mastermind remained at large — luckily, the Pakistani’s DID manage to get KSM for us — so they’re doing one better?
as late as 1981 (9 yrs afterwards), the Israeli’s were still putting out hits. We’ve been at this for a little over 3… we’ll keep chugging along.
“M.” — Despite all the evil that was Stalin, the Red Army inflicted something like 70% of all German casualties in WWII. He was bad, but not having him would’ve been worse. It’s hard to concoct a better example of situations where you’ve gotta partner with a REALLY BAD DUDE to kill a WORSE DUDE. Yep, having Stalin around did bite us but I’d venture that ending WWII sooner was worth it.
ok… this thread has gone WAY off tangent. mea culpa. 😉
Well what would we say if this discussion was on topic? That the Bush Administration lies or misleads about facts in order to bolster its preexisting policy agenda?
What’s to discuss? The present discussion is far more interesting.
I’m afraid I don’t share your view of battling strongmen and fanatics. Pakistani govt. policy created these very groups and uses them to further its perceived strategic interests.
Just to forewarn you, I’ve never been to Pakistan, nor studied it in depth.
I don’t think that things are quite the same as they were prior to September 11th based on what I see Musharraf doing to cater to the U.S.. If I were an Islamist in Pakistan, I would have become more radicalized in the past four years. Under this kind of stress–which pulls it in two opposite directions at once–a triangulation strategy like the one you’re referring to is bound to come up against a crucial point: an insurgency to destroy it because many people feel the government is not serving their interests (Islamist or otherwise), or a military crackdown that will attempt to thoroughly obliterate said insurgency (but will probably fail in the long run because it’s a social movement like Islamist fanaticism, not a countable number of people).
An assassination would be a triggering event, not a cause.
saurav:
I quite agree that if there were an ‘Islamist’ insurgency the triangulation policy will be more difficult to sustain, perhaps even fail. However the premise of your counterargument, relying on a generic Islamist (opposition), is false for that very reason.
Certainly, there are Islamists in Pakistan, inside and outside the government. But while their ire is directed against all manner of ‘kafirs’, it’s only a splinter faction (allied w/ al-qaeda) which is carrying out anti-govt. activity. They don’t amount to the sort of threat you (and other Americans) fear.
The overwhelming majority of Islamists target India, not surprisingly, since they’re tied closely to the Pakistani government. American (and Indian) pressure, post-911, has simply resulted in a lowering of their profile. But they’re still being funded and they openly raise money on their own. Witness the activities of Fazlur Rehman, ‘arrested’ post-Parliament attack (i.e., lolling about in a luxurious govt. guest house), but now quite openly soliciting money for murder & mayhem in India. In other words, the Islamists in Pakistan–the vast majority, anyway–are kept ‘on tap, not on top’ by the govt.
The General’s departure from the scene will hardly affect this scenario, or cause these Islamists to launch a insurgency. Why should they, after all? Their disagreement with the Pakistani govt., if any, is merely tactical. The strategic goal–to change the status quo in S. Asia–is shared by the govt. & the jihadis. The jihadis are one of the instruments of triangulation by the Pakistani govt., and there is not much likelihood of that changing.
Kumar
The jihadis are one of the instruments of triangulation by the Pakistani govt., and there is not much likelihood of that changing.
I hope you’re right. From what I’ve gathered from conversations with people like you, I do tend to take an oversimplified and paranoid view of these things (e.g. someone in Delhi had to staright me staright that there are other components to the BJP besides the exclusively fascistic one).
The one objection I have to the points you raise is that they seem (if I’m wrong) to betray a sort of eternality of the status quo. Things change rapidly, and all of a sudden you wake up and circumstances are totally different. For example, I doubt there were many in the US predicting in 1972 that in 30 years tha United States would be governed by a coalition of Right Wing Christian ideologues and shills for big business, nor that U.S. power would be waning with respect to China and India, nor that Japan would essentially be a nonfactor.
-s
Larry Pressler, former Republican Senator from South Dakota, penned the following editorial, which is critical of America’s kid-glove approach towards Pakistan:
“Dissing Democracy in South Asia” New York Times, March 21, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/opinion/21pressler.html?
Some choice quotes:
“From the late 1970’s to the mid-1990’s, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I repeatedly warned that Pakistan was selling nuclear materials to other nations. Administrations, both Democratic and Republican, turned a blind eye; they even got leaders of our intelligence community to say that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Well, everything I said has been proved absolutely true – to an even more worrisome degree than I had described.”
Pressler will be interviewed later today on Worldview, a radio program produced by WBEZ, Chicago’s NPR station. For anyone interested, you can go to wbez.org, and click on the audio link. The program comes on at 1:00 PM Central Time. On yesterday’s show, the interview a number of South Asians from Chicago to get their opinions on the latest round of cricket diplomacy. Just go to the Archive section of the site to listen to that show.
saurav:
“…I hope you’re right…The one objection I have…is that they seem…to betray a sort of eternality of the status quo…Things change rapidly…”
Actually, I rather hope I’m proved wrong. I certainly don’t view the continued use of jihadis against India with equanimity. Rather, I hope that Pakistan actually does become the sort of (Islamic) democracy Mr. Bush mistakenly believes it to be now.
I simply don’t see any prospect for change–violent or otherwise–coming from within Pakistan. It’s a stable (local) equilibrium. Pakistan will budge from this equilibrium only with nudging from outside forces (read America, among others).
It’s precisely excessive solicitude for the General’s well-being which prevents the application of the right sort of pressure on Pakistan by the int’l community. I’m not arguing for harsh measures, simply insistence on a restoration of democracy. And by that I mean a democracy not constantly looking over it’s shoulder for the Army’s approval.
And that can only happen once the Pakistani Army is cut down to size. A very small step in that direction is a recognition of the General for what he is–a dictator, whatever his current title.
BTW, I think the prospect of a Pakistani democracy mutating into an (Islamic) mobocracy lesser than many Western analysts.
Kumar
I hope that Pakistan actually does become the sort of (Islamic) democracy Mr. Bush mistakenly believes it to be now.
One, you’re underestimating Bush’s intelligence here and overestimating his integrity. Bush (or whoever feeds him strategery advice on geopolitics) knows the Faustian bargain they’ve made with Pakistan.
Two, I hope there’s democracy in Pakistan too, but what I know of the track record of Pakistan is an alternation between barely functioning (and I think I’m being charitable here) democracy characterized by religious and ethnic schisms and violence and dictatorship. Things are always stable until they’re not, as they saying now goes.
And that’s before its archnemesis was a world playa.
saurav:
A methodological note: While tempting, it’s pointless to speculate about Mr. Bush’s IQ or integrity when discussing American policies.
I think American behavior is better predicted–as with any other nation–based on its interests, broadly conceived. Or, ideology + security + economy is likely to be a better guide to American behavior than attempting to plumb the depths of Mr. Bush’s personality. Leaders come and go, nations (and their interests) aren’t quite so transitory.
And about Pakistan, certainly I’m not suggesting that a rebirth of Athens-on-Indus is just around the corner. But I do think a semi-functioning democracy in Pakistan–with its angry Islamists on a low simmer–is not an outlandish hope.
Kumar
You’re more optimistic than I.
But about the other point: it’s pointless to speculate about Mr. Bush’s IQ or integrity when discussing American policies
I also agree that the big picture is largely defined by the nation’s interests; otherwise, the practices of US foreign policy wouldn’t be so consistent over the past 60 years (if not longer), and people wouldn’t be freaking out as much from some of the Bush crew’s divergence from “traditional” American foreign policy approaches.
What I should have said, rather than “Bush’s integrity” was “the illiberalism of the Republican Right.” Which is a huge issue-albeit one I see playing out more in terms of changes in the way the U.S. government conducts itself in relation to its citizens and the law(but with effects on how it treats noncitizens, the environment, etc.).