To borrow an expression from Mao Ze Dong, the US has the unique knack of frequently
lifting and dropping a boulder on its own feet by backing wrong and undesirable horses in
the name of democracy and national interest.
Post-World War Asia is replete with instances of wrong horses
pampered by the US ultimately ending in ignominy--- former Presidents Syngman Rhee of
South Korea, Ngo-Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and
Suharto of Indonesia and the Shah of Iran. Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, another blue-eyed
dictator of Washington, died in a mysterious plane crash, taking the then US Ambassador in
Islamabad to death along with him.
All these dictators were supported in the name of making the
world safe for democracy by using them to crush communism.
The only dictators to escape such a fate, with some popular
support, were those whom the US tried its best to overthrow, again in the name of
democracy-- Presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba, Muammar al-Gadafi of Libya, Hafez al-Assad of
Syria, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Milosevic of Yugoslavia, the Islamic leaders of Iran and
the military junta of Myanmar.
When it comes to saving democracy, Washington seems to have the
Midas touch in the reverse. The dictators whom it touches turn to historical dust and
those cursed by it survive and flourish, to its consternation.
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Chief Executive of Pakistan, now joins
the long list of military dictators blessed by the US, despite the fact that he overthrew
a popularly-elected Prime Minister (Mr.Nawaz Sharif), who paid with his political career
and who may now pay with his life if the General has his way, for having heeded the US
President, Mr.Bill Clinton's advice to order the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the
Indian territory in the Kargil area last year.
History has many instances of military officers sacked or
otherwise removed by the elected political leadership quietly bowing out with dignity
despite being aggrieved by the decision---the removal of Gen. MacArthur by President
Truman, of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat by the Govt. of India and of Gen.Wiranto by President
Abdur Rahman Wahid of Indonesia, to cite some.
But, when Mr.Sharif sacked Gen. Musharraf for insubordination,
the latter had him overthrown and arrested, seized power, suspended the elected Assemblies
and the Constitution, proclaimed himself the ruler and deprived the judiciary of its
powers to question the legality of his actions.
Pakistan has had coups before-- by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and
Zia-ul-Haq. All of them seized power on the ground of political and economic instability
in the country, but Gen.Musharraf seized power because he was sacked from office for
insubordination.
He has disregarded every advice of Washington ever since he
became the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) in October 1998:
* He had the heroin refineries shifted to Afghan territory
from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas
(FATA) of Pakistan in order to avoid taking action against them.
* He did not pressurise the Taliban to cut down opium
production, which has, on the contrary, doubled to 4,600 tons, from which 460 tons of
grade-four heroin, pure enough to be injected, can be made--nearly three-quarters of
world's supply, according to the UN's International Narcotics Control Board.
* Staged the coup and overthrew Mr.Sharif despite a US
warning against it.
* Declined to pave the way for the return of power to a
civilian government.
* Went back on Mr.Sharif's commitment to the US to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
* Has avoided pressurising the Taliban to arrest and deport
or, at least expel, Osama bin Laden from its territory.
* Has declined to ban the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), which
was declared by the US as an international terrorist organisation in October, 1997, and
which hijacked the Indian Airlines aircraft to Kandahar in December.
* Has avoided arresting the hijackers and trying them
before a court in Pakistan or handing them over to India, as required under international
conventions on hijacking.
* Has been trying to unite the various terrorist groups,
which are members of bin Laden's International Islamic Front For Jihad Against the US and
Israel, for intensifying the Jihad against India in Kashmir and has justified his action
on the ground that Islamic jihadists recognise no international borders.
* Has surrounded himself with officers close to
fundamentalist groups such as Lt.Gen.Mohammed Aziz, Chief of the General Staff, Lt.Gen.
Mahmoud Ahmed, the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Lt.Gen.
Zaffar Usmani, CO, 5 Corps, Karachi, while projecting himself to the US as a moderate and
progressive officer.
Despite his thus repeatedly cocking a snook at Washington,
Mr.Clinton has chosen to stop over at Islamabad on his way back to the US after his
forthcoming visit to India and lunch with the General.
Washington has projected this decision not as an endorsement of
the legitimacy of the General's regime, but as a gesture of solidarity with the Pakistani
nation and people and as an attempt to bring the General back to the path of moderation
and co-operation with the US on the nuclear and terrorism non-proliferation issues.
But, that is not the way the General has been projecting it. He
has been flaunting before his people Mr.Clinton's acceptance of his invitation as an
endorsement of his regime and its actions and its hardline stance on the Kashmir issue. He
has already embarked on an exercise to silence his critics and pressurise the judiciary to
legitimise his regime as, otherwise, according to him, Pakistan's national interests would
be jeopardised.
He has been blatantly projecting his continuance in power as in
the national interest of Pakistan. There are already signs of disappointment in Pakistan
over his failure to deliver on the promises made by him after seizing power and when this
disappointment turns into resentment, part of the public anger is likely to turn against
the US too.
The US has much to be grateful to Pakistan for its steadfastness
as a Cold War ally and for its co-operation with the US in Afghanistan for which it is
paying a heavy price today in the form of narcotics smuggling and addiction, a comatose
economy and mushrooming jihadi groups, which are threatening to weaken the Pakistani
society and its institutions, including the armed forces.
But, if it allows this gratitude for the past soften its
perception of the true nature of the Musharraf regime and helps the General in laundering
his public image, it would be severely damaging its own national interests in the region.
It similarly helped the Taliban in 1994 in the hope of using it
against Iran and facilitating the construction of the oil and gas pipeline from
Turkmenistan and has subsequently paid a heavy price for its folly.
It is likely to pay an equally heavy price for its current folly
in blessing the regime in Pakistan, despite its proximity to the Taliban, bin Laden, the
religious terrorist groups and narcotics barons.
B.RAMAN
(9-3-00)
