And old-ish, but new to me article by Daniel Drezner posits questions about a hypothetical country called Badistan – a rather thinly-disguised Pakistan –
Pop quiz: You’re in charge of protecting the national security of the United States. There’s a pivotal country–let’s call it Badistan–that plays a crucial role in advancing American interests. But elements within that country–including some who work for the government–are abetting actors that virulently oppose America. The leader of this government has pledged to cooperate with the United States, but the two attempts on his life over the past month suggest his domestic position is precarious. What approach do you take to Badistan?
So, Drezner says push for democracy, not Musharraf. Otherwise the U.S. is always susceptible to blackmail, ‘give me the F-16s / green light in Kashmir / aid or the fundies will overrun the country.’
well, specifically he says you need BOTH “carrots and sticks”.
Musharraf and the United States are stuck between rock and a hard place here. Pushing for democracy immediately means instability for a period. When most of the hardcore leadership is lying low in the area, this gives them opportunity to slip further away or take charge. US is stretched thin, therefore securing nuclear materials in an instable environment in an event where things go horribly wrong is difficult.
Eventually a democracy NEEDS to re-emerge in Pakistan. The question is when? Currently the USA wants bad guys (Al Qaida, Taliban) flushed out. Musharraf has control over historically the most powerful institution in Pakistan: The military.
So, for now the USA and Musharraf fish out as many big bad boys as possible. USA gives Musharraf enough support to stand his ground. Once a level of confidence has been reached where the criminal leadership elements have been pushed back enough, steps towards establishment of a respresentative republic takes place. These steps can occur concurrently by phasing in it over time.
An established nuclear weapons program and India as the neighbor is what really complicates this. The long term strategy must be consistent with a push towards a democratically elected government.
If an election was held in Pakistan today, the Center Left PPP would win the election. The coalition of religious parties (MMA) will not garner more than 10% of the votes. That 10% will only happen if all the religious parties do not split (they always do in the end) The battle would be between the PPP and the Center Right Muslim League. As things stand now, PPP should come out on top. Of course, Musharraf will never agree to such an election and keep playing up the boogeyman of a MMA victory so that the US does not pressure him too much to democratize.
Free Sindh! Free Balochistan!
FWIW, the plan Mushie agreed to is for Pakistani elections in 2007 (yep… 2.5 YEARS from now… who knows what’ll come up between now and then…).
He has zero cred on democracy– he’s violated promises to hold elections and give up his army post, he’s rewritten the constitution, he’s sacked judges. 2007 will likely get pushed out to 2009… the same fool’s game China and North Korea play with us.