Pakistan comes first
Shafqat Mahmood
The writer is a former Senator and a
former federal and provincial minister
smahmood@lhr.comsats.net.pk
Placed in a difficult situation, there is little else that President Musharraf and his colleagues could have done. Only the naive or the foolish, or those that do not want Pakistan to survive, can question the logic informing their decision. We may have our reservations about the rush to judgement in the United States. We also question the moral basis or the military value of further destroying Afghanistan. But then, the luxury of making moral judgements, or choosing convenient targets, is only available to the powerful. The weak have to look after their interests.
The speech President Musharraf made Wednesday was extraordinary in many ways but one theme stood out. For him, and for all of us, Pakistan comes first. We have to protect Pakistan and secure its economic and strategic interests before we start to worry about others. We can try and advise the Taliban to handover Osama and save their country and their movement from destruction. We can suggest caution, and patience, to the United States. But, in the end, we have to look out for ourselves.
If this sounds selfish and cynical, so be it. A fundamental tenet of a nation state is to look after its national interest. This is what the Musharraf government is trying to do. As opposed to this, the primary catalyst for an ideological movement is a belief system for which the state can be sacrificed. The Taliban may choose this route. Our response and their response are qualitatively distinct, based on contrary strains of thought. These are parallel lines that can never meet. Their wisdom is not our wisdom. Our pragmatism does not exist in their lexicon.
This division between two distinct paradigms may also help to explain the reaction within Pakistan. A very large majority condemns the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington while questioning the morality of American actions in other parts of the world. In particular, people are disturbed, even angered, by the horrendous sanctions against Iraq that by one estimate have killed half a million children. They also deeply resent the indiscriminate support to Israel that has resulted in the death and destruction of innocent Palestinians. Yet, these same people support General Musharraf's decision to stand by the United States.
There is no paradox in this. A majority in this country is willing to choose wisdom over emotion as suggested by President Musharraf. They do so because of the nation state paradigm not because they have suddenly come to consider the United States a paragon of virtue. They realise that it is not in Pakistan's national interest to take on the world or at least its powerful states. They also believe that Pakistan's critical concerns would be severely undermined were we to get into an adversarial position with the United States. Thus, the welfare of the nation state, for most people, triumphs over whatever moral concerns they may have.
This is not true of a vocal minority that is 'afflicted' by the ideological paradigm. To them the survival or the welfare of the nation state is secondary to the righteousness of their beliefs. If you tell them about the stupidity of standing up to the most powerful nation in the world, they do not understand. It is not because they are foolish but because these arguments have no place in their frame of reference. That is why I say these are parallel lines of thinking and there is no possibility of convergence.
I am often asked how much of a challenge is this to General Musharraf and his regime. As things stand today, it is a problem but not something that cannot be overcome. Overt manifestations of anger, such as mass demonstrations, can easily be contained. The government has so far been very lenient. This can change if the situation starts to get out of control. Our administration is sadly in a bit of disarray thanks to General Naqvi and his band of revolutionaries. The district administration, which has a critical role to play in law and order, is like a headless chicken without the co-coordinating presence of the Deputy Commissioner. This means that the army will have to get directly involved. But, I have little doubt that overt expressions of public anger can be contained.
This can change once the US military campaign begins. If the bombing is indiscriminate with a lot of civilian causalities or if Pakistan is required to go beyond the parameters of intelligence sharing, logistics and use of air space, there could be trouble. In particular, the stationing of US ground troops in Pakistan, for a prolonged period, would have a very negative impact on the internal political dynamics. The people burning the midnight oil in the Pentagon and the State Department need to take this into consideration.
Even if overt demonstrations are contained, the problem of internal terrorism would remain as a major predicament for a long time. The situation in Egypt is a classical example of what could happen here. The Egyptian ruling classes decided in 1978 that a prolonged conflict with Israel is not in their national interest. They decided to go along with the United States and mend fences with Israel. Sadat's sudden dash to Jerusalem was a major shock to a lot of people in Egypt. Overt problems were contained but a terrorist problem continues to haunt them to this day. I hope this does not happen here, but the impact of a military campaign against Afghanistan will remain with us for a long time.
We can choose to get intimidated by this or take it as a wake up call. Already we are suffering from many kinds of terrorism. Just yesterday, a bomb blast in Sialkot has killed five people. Karachi, in particular, but also other cities continue to suffer from the ravages of sectarian terrorism. No one has any doubt that there is an evil within us but not much has been done about it. The time has come now to focus our minds. All the resources of the state need to be geared up to fight this scourge.
If a military campaign against Afghanistan becomes inevitable, the President also needs to reconsider his political options. He has himself called this as the most serious crisis faced by us since 1971. This is a time for the nation to be together. A military government is by definition isolated from the people, simply because it does not have any structure for organised political support. It is one thing to imagine that people support it and another to actually have a compact with popular political parties.
There has never been a more suitable time for a national government to be in place. We are facing a very serious situation and the army alone should not be put in a position to face the fall out of whatever happens in Afghanistan. I do not know how easy it would be to get the major political parties to join a national coalition, but an attempt must be made. Some principles, and long held beliefs about politicians, may have to be sacrificed. But, the same nation state paradigm that impels us to support the United States, should also inform the political steps that need to be taken.
It has almost become a cliche to say that we are at a difficult juncture because we have been there so many times before. Yet, the situation we face today is a unique challenge and the difficulties that lie ahead are qualitatively different. The state and the people need to stand together in this hour of our nations trial.