Pakistan Elections Pose Dilemma for Bush

Musharraf’s many opponents fear he will rig the elections to cling to power. The United States still praises the general and has contributed billions of dollars in military aid. The No. 2 U.S. diplomat, John Negroponte, plans to travel to Pakistan next week for talks with Musharraf.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 8 2007 21:34 utc | 3

Debs is dead writes:

Pakistan has been a nation of amerikan interest since 911, before that no one seemed to care, and many will be unaware of this nation’s unlucky political history.

Er, didn’t the US pay some Pakistani student group through General Zia-ul-Haq to take an interest in Afghani affairs during the early ’80s while the Soviets and the Afghanis were fighting? Weren’t those US funds cut off as the Soviet/Afghan war wore down; shortly before Gen. Zia’s untimely death?

Posted by: CMike | Sep 9 2007 1:06 utc | 5

@CMike of course amerika had a limited interest in Pakistan before 911 but that is what it was limited and rarely reached the public eye in the way that news from Pakistan has since 911.
Zia was involved in aiding the mujahadeen but the ‘students’ I gather you refer to are the ones which went on to become Taliban and that was the brainchild of ISI chief Hamid Gul, who also armed and trained the Kashmiri resistance. Gul was eventually sacked by ‘Mr Nuke’ Ghulam Ishaq Khan one of the highest ranking Pathans in Pakistan’s government.
Khan himself, eventually got caught up in his own machinations of playing Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif off against each other.
The whole nuke thing reflects the low level of interest that amerika had in Pakistan before 911. Pakistani islamicists had been working on ways to assist other Islamic nations go nuclear.
Since 911 amerika has been far more active in it’s interference in domestic Pakistan politics.
The Taleban and nuclear affairs show how distant amerikan interest had been pre-911. Close to racism really – the way amerika seemed to consider “them to be all the same’. The level of pre-911 interest was incredibly low considering Pakistan borders China, Afghanistan and Iran. Somehow I doubt the poor buggers are going to be left alone again for a very long time.
There would be few nations on this planet which aren’t subjected to low level unwarranted amerikan interference in their affairs, and that was the case of Pakistan pre-911. Since 911 Pakistan may not have replaced Israel as the most heavily cajoled/interfered/ass kissed leadership by amerika but it isn’t that far off of that dubious privilige.
The difference is public opinion – the average Israeli may hold amerika in contempt but they want amerika’s interest whereas the average Pakistani feels as General Hamid Gul did “God will destroy America.”

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 9 2007 3:03 utc | 7

Debs,
Pakistan may not have replaced Israel as the most heavily cajoled/interfered/ass kissed leadership by amerika but it isn’t that far off of that dubious privilige.
There is a substantive d/f b/n US relations with Israel and Pakistan not to mention the latter’s influence in US domestic politics. According to even pro-US Pakistanis, which are a rare find, the price that they are paying for the “ass” kissing is getting too heavy.
While folks in the US may forget the post Cold War treatment – those in Pakistan claim that they are tired of being used like a condom to enter Afghanistan and to be dumped unceremoniously afterwards.
the average Israeli may hold amerika in contempt but they want amerika’s interest whereas the average Pakistani feels as General Hamid Gul did “God will destroy America.”
Humm – opinion is based on treatment and personal experience. Maybe if Pakistani’s were handed nuclear weapons, UN veto’s at any time against any violation, enough funds to live a Western life style, no visa restrictions to enter the US and front seat to regional hegemon in the western Asia just to name a few of the perks – maybe then the Pakistani’s would fight even GOD to embrace amerkia’s interest or is it their own interest?

Posted by: BenIAM | Sep 9 2007 3:17 utc | 9

Benaziar Bhutto in a Guardian piece: I see a new future for Pakistan, says Bhutto

‘Under my leadership, the PPP will bring moderation, democracy and the basics that the nation’s poorest need,’ she said. ‘We represent the underprivileged, the peasants, women, young people, the minorities, all those who have been neglected by elite governments.’
Bhutto, many of whose key supporters are drawn from among the so-called ‘feudal’ landowners of Pakistan’s south and east, confirmed talks with representatives of General Pervez Musharraf, who has ruled Pakistan since taking power in a bloodless coup in 1999.
…
The exiled Sharif said yesterday he would stick to his plan to return to Pakistan tomorrow despite a request from Saudi Arabia to abandon his planned trip. ‘I will go back to Pakistan on 10 September with my brother because my country needs me,’ he told a news conference in London, hours after an envoy urged him to respect a Saudi-brokered deal made in 2000 under which he had agreed to leave Pakistan for 10 years. It is unclear what kind of welcome he might receive in a country ruled by a man he once attempted to kill.
Bhutto is now almost certain to return herself, albeit after Sharif. To become premier once more, she would have to reverse a constitutional amendment passed in the aftermath of the 1999 coup and directed at her and Sharif that limits individuals to two terms as Prime Minister. ‘I am doing this for the constitution, not for personal benefit,’ Bhutto said.

Yes, sure – no personal benefit …

Posted by: b | Sep 9 2007 8:18 utc | 11

instead of honduras i meant guatemala

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 9 2007 16:17 utc | 13

That was painless.
Obviously the CIA forgot to explain to Mr. Mush how the revolving door is supposed to work in so-called “low-impact Democracies.”

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 10 2007 14:05 utc | 15

DiD,
This has to be one of your most perplexing posts yet.
The Pakistani policial process needs to evolve and as it becomes more mature the voters will be able to demand a higher quality candidate, but like with so many other developing nations, imperial powers are always deciding that they must interfere. But that interference stunts the political evolution of the nation they have meddled with.
Could the same not be said for the US? Is Pakistan still “developing,” whatever that means? How many years do nations need to develop, before there is a simulacrum of democracy?
Here in the US, we have been “developing” for 230 years, and the people are as foolish as ever, if not more so. In my entire life of 50 plus years, I can only recall one major candidate worth voting for, that had even a chance of winning, and that was the ever-formidable Gore Vidal, who was ridiculed out of politics by the elite, but managed to fail upwards, into a kind of oracular literary presence.
Might not Italy’s travails have had more to do with CIA destabilization of a country with an engaged populace with great support for more participative democracy, up to and including the communist party? Were the people of the Philippines substantively better off under Aquino than Marcos? How about today? Is their Democracy “developing?”
I question your Marxian assumption that there is a clear and orderly path which nations must take before their populace manages to secure any say, or power. I believe that people can seize the power and control over their situations at any point, if a substantially motivated population exists, and outside meddling does not prove decisive.
These days, I regard any so-called “Pro-Democracy” candidate as a neo-liberal IMF/World Bank/UN/Washington-Davos Consensus wolf in sheep’s clothing. Naomi Klein rightly identifies current Democratic elections, such as those in Iraq, as “street theatre;” I have called them a “fetish” many times on this blog. These Harvard-educated vermin, such as Peru’s Toledo, et.al., will privatize your entire government, all of its services, the doctors who sustain you, the military which “protects” you, the roads you ride on, the water you drink, the air you breath, and even the three dimensions you happen to occupy at any given time, just to keep the meter ticking on the profit they can make by your soul’s very existence. They own the commons, and you must pay for your incarnation on this plane in the fiduciary, not the karmic, sense.
Under conditions such as these, I find terms such as “Democracy” misleading.
Likewise, as the planet approaches the limits of its extractive capacity, and nations struggle to somehow “solidify” their place on the World System hierarchy (which mandates that their must always be bottom-of-the-barrel suppliers of raw goods nations), I find the use of the term “developing” to be at best misleading, and at worst, the very patronizing, which you decry.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 11 2007 0:10 utc | 17

Poll: Bin Laden tops Musharraf in Pakistan

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf — a key U.S. ally — is less popular in his own country than al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to a poll of Pakistanis conducted last month by an anti-terrorism organization.
…
The poll was conducted for Terror Free Tomorrow by D3 Systems of Vienna, Virginia., and the Pakistan Institute for Public Opinion. Interviews were conducted August 18-29, face-to-face with 1,044 Pakistanis across 105 urban and rural sampling points in all four provinces across the nation. Households were randomly selected.
According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf’s support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush’s approval: 9 percent.
Asked their opinion on the real purpose of the U.S.-led war on terror, 66 percent of poll respondents said they believe the United States is acting against Islam or has anti-Muslim motivation. Others refused to answer the question or said they did not know.

McCain is on the advisory board of Terror Free Tomorrow, so take this with some punds of salt …

Posted by: b | Sep 12 2007 7:11 utc | 19

@Malooga My post was perplexing? Pot calling the kettle black doesn’t enter into it.
For the sake of the point I was making about desperate moves causing bad outcomes, what difference does it make whether life under Corey Aquino was better or worse after Marcos was dismissed?
It was, well that is according to the people I worked with in the union movement there, they no longer risked death or imprisonment for organising workers, but that is irrelevant to what I was saying, that the death of Ninoy Aquino, an act that only occurred because Marcos felt protected by his status with amerika, caused a backlash amongst his people which brought him undone. I mooted that it may be same same for Mushareef with Sharif.
As for the inane developing discussion, is it that time of year already? We haven’t covered that pedantry for a while I suppose so I shall restate the bleeding obvious… I don’t particularly like developing either but vastly prefer it to third world with it’s insinuation of third rate. When I use developed I am referring to economic and infrastructure systems not political ones and personally I don’t consider being undeveloped a bad thing, developing less good, but not as bad as developed.
However that said being less economically sophisticated or developed than other countries does leave one weaker in the dog eat dog world of global politics where money is king. That is why less wealthy nations are more susceptible to outside manipulation no matter how sophisticated their political process is. I guess patronising is in the eye of the beholder. Some may find another poster treating others’ posts as if they were high school essays to be lauded, critiqued or thanked somewhat patronising.
Which reminds me isn’t the adjective for Marx, marxist not marxian?
It was exactly my point that it was CIA interference which held back Italy’s participative political evolution. As soon as the amerikan meddling toned down a little a measure of stability ensued. They were so worried about ‘communism’ they looked at what the Italian politicians were calling themselves rather than what policies they were advocating – pedantics again I suppose.
Spain on the other hand had been subjected to far less CIA involvement – the secret police had it covered so when the Franco administration collapsed the secret police’s power shot down the gurgler quickly afterward and the opportunity for participatory politics appeared. There wasn’t much anti-left structure to hold it’s development back. Consequently Spain’s participatory political process stabilised over a much shorter time from inception than Italy’s did.
The amerikan meddling in Pakistani politics will hold the voters in a thrall. We want that which we aren’t allowed. By trying to stifle political movements amerika believes to be extremist in these countries they inhibit the people’s ability to reach an objective judgement about which ethos will suit them best.
The next stage of meddling is less brutal but more obstructive to system evolution.
Malooga you don’t like participative political processes, fair enough but Malooga or any other amerikan’s opinion shouldn’t count for jack shit in Pakistan – or anywhere outside amerika. Why should amerikans’ views always be forced upon other nations who are trying to evolve their own system?
As far as the value of democracy goes there is one thing I have noticed about elections in the various countries I have observed them in. That is the worth of the candidates is inversely proportional to the degree of amerikan interference in the system. I can’t speak for amerika as to how long their elections have been frustrating endeavours but I know from my experience in this part of the world that amerikan involvement in the political system stuffs the process and reduces the opportunity for voters to pick from amongst a range of candidates.
If anyone feels that is being hard on amerika I will conceed that any outsiders interference will yield the same outcome but it only ever seems to be amerikan or maybe USuk interference about this planet nowadays.
Most middleaged humanist Australians feel the Whitlam government was the last worthy bunch of succesful pollies. They were’t perfect but were OK. They got the flick because of outside interference. The result is no worthy candidates get elected in Oz.
An example of how it works.
e.g.
“What’s the point in stopping Uranium mining? If we do we will end up out of office or dead and won’t be able to do anything?” Same for getting rid of USuk spybases and amerikan B-52 nuclear flights etc. political power can be reduced to an arm wrestle if some are not committed to the process.
The majority of people may want something but that desire isn’t so strong they would die for it. Therefore if someone who holds a few cards but isn’t committed to the process comes along the chances are they will be able to subvert the will of the people.
Amerika is never committed to other nations political processes. The exceptionalism bug-bear rears it’s head every time.
Amerika has blatantly screwed the process in both Palestine and Iraq in the last couple of years. In both nations many of those people who voted were genuinely committed to the process and in the case of Palestine at least, a number of the successful candidates were more ethical in their approach to representative democracy than amerika would have seen from any successful candidate at a national level in many a long year. Can’t have that!
I’m certain that Palestinians will never get a chance like that again. Fucked over by interfering lapdogs. It will become the same as Australia and everywhere else until the amerikan empire has been beaten.
Sorry bout the gabbiness but I’m trying not to leave any room for ‘perplexion’.
On that note I guess I better state that no, I don’t believe that defeat of the amerikan empire will result in everybody living happily ever after under participative political processes that return laudable outcomes. However I do believe that there will be no possibility of any laudable outcomes until the amerikan empire has been defeated.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 12 2007 22:16 utc | 21

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your points, DiD. I greatly respect your contributions to this blog, and learn a lot from you, and that is why I did confront you — out of respect. By the way, “Marxian” was a lame attempt at interjecting some humor into my post.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 13 2007 15:27 utc | 23