by Kenneth J. Theisen
The CIA has a word for unintended consequences resulting from actions taken by the U.S. government – “blowback.” Two of the best known cases of blowback are the overthrow of the democratic elected leader of Iran in 1953 and the installation of the Shah of Iran in his place; and the training, arming and financing of Islamic fundamentalists to fight the Soviets in the 1980s in Afghanistan. In the first case, the U.S. support for the Shah resulted in the Iranian revolution a quarter century later which led to the takeover of Iran by Islamic fundamentalists. The second case led to the rise of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other Islamic fundamentalists.
The Bush regime may soon suffer another case of blowback. On November 3rd, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf “s declared a “state of emergency.” Since coming to power, the Bush administration has provided over $10 billion in aid to Musharraf’s military regime claiming that he was a key ally in the “war on terror.”
Even after the state of emergency declaration, which is really martial law rule by the President/General, Bush is still praising the attributes of the dictator. On November 5, 2007 Bush stated that Musharraf is a “strong fighter against extremists and radicals.” Bush went on to say “[I hope he] will restore democracy as quickly as possible.”
Bush is involved in a delicate balancing act. To justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the regime has claimed it is bringing democracy to the Middle East and other countries. This is also part of the rationale for the so-called “war on terrorism” where Bush cronies claim terrorists attack and hate the U.S. for its freedom and promotion of democracy. But then along comes one of the Bush’s supporters in the “war on terrorism” who suspended his nation’s constitution, fired several justices of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, attacked and shut down independent media outlets, put troops and tanks on the streets, and rounded up thousands of political opponents.
What is going on here? Why would the Bush regime so openly support a dictator?
Well for one thing, he is the Bush regime’s dictator. U.S. imperialism has a long history of supporting dictators and authoritarian governments. Yes, occasionally the U.S. overthrows some like Noriega in Panama or Saddam in Iraq if the dictator pulls at the imperialist leash, but for the most part supporting dictatorships is just fine with Washington.
Musharraf has been a loyal dog to the U.S. since he seized power from then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a military coup in 1999. At first he ruled Pakistan as chief executive and then in a 2002 rigged referendum he won a five-year presidential term. Recently Musharraf won another rigged presidential elections on Oct 6, 2007. The Pakistani people were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on the legality or illegality of the election. On November 2, 2007 the court met to begin to deliberate on the matter. But fearing an adverse ruling, Musharraf imposed emergency rule the next day and purged opposition judges from the court. [In some ways this sounds eerily similar to another President’s rise to power.] One of the main legal issues was the fact that Musharraf held the jobs of Army Chief and President simultaneously. He had pledged to step down as Army chief but then backed out of the promise.
Since 9/11 the Bush regime has portrayed Musharraf as a strong leader who can save Muslim Pakistan from Islamic extremists. Top U.S. officials have regularly met with him and supported him when he faced internal opposition to his actions. In return for U.S. support, Musharraf has used the Pakistani military to crackdown on Islamic militants and also on Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But Musharraf has faced much internal opposition. The opposition had come from Islamic militants, more moderate Islamic forces, and the secular left as well. His holding on to the job of Army Chief and the support provided by the U.S. has enabled him to maintain himself in power.
But over the last several months he faced massive demonstrations in the streets from thousands of lawyers on one hand and radical militants on the other. He has also faced armed opposition and been the target of assassination attempts. More recently, opponents in exile have begun to return to the country to challenge him as well. This includes former Prime Ministers Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Sharif was forced to leave the country within hours of his return, and Bhutto was welcomed back to Pakistan by a bomb explosion last month that killed 139 people in a failed assassination attempt on her. Faced with all these challenges, Musharraf implemented the state of emergency.
But even though Musharaff has been the loyal lap dog, the relationship between the dog and his masters has not been without contradictions. The Bush regime has wanted Musharraf to crack down even more on radical Islamic forces, particularly Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Pakistan. These forces appear to have increased in strength in Pakistan, especially in the areas bordering Afghanistan. But Musharraf does not have a totally free hand. For one thing, there are many in the military that support these forces for reasons of their own.
[For many years the Taliban received financial and military aid from the ISI, Pakistan’s very powerful military intelligence service. During the Soviet Afghanistan war, the CIA and ISI worked very closely together. The ISI was the conduit for CIA money to be channeled to the Islamic fundamentalists including the “Arab Afghans” which included the likes of Osama bin Laden. When the Soviets finally exited the country, the ISI then threw its support to the forces that emerged as the Taliban in the Afghanistan civil war which followed. Money, weapons, and advisers were provided by ISI to the Taliban. Because the U.S. hoped for a “stable” or controllable Afghanistan government, the U.S. even supported the Taliban when it first came to power.]
Because of the previous intimate relationship between the ISI and the Islamic fundamentalists, some in the U.S. military and intelligence communities fear that the tie was not thoroughly broken after the 9/11 attack and this is probably true to some extent. This has limited how much Musharaff has been able to do in cracking down on the Islamic fundamentalists. But there are other factors too.
In the Northwest Provinces of Pakistan there are many tribal and feudal forces and the reach of the Pakistan government since it creation has often been nominal at most. These forces resent Musharraf’s complicity in the Bush regime’s “war on terror.” They have waged an “on again, off again” war against the government with the most recent period being an on again one. There are also other significant fundamentalist forces within Pakistan with a large popular following. For the most part these forces oppose Musharraf, though at times they collaborate with his government as well. Because of all this, Musharraf is limited in what he can do at the behest of his masters in Washington.
Today the Bush regime would prefer that Musharraf rule under a democratic façade. This makes it easier to disguise Washington’s hypocrisy. At the same time, the Bush administration needs to keep it ally in power. He is the horse the regime has bet on and it is too late to post another bet. [I am sure though that the Bush regime is exploring its options. Secretary Rice has recently rejected criticism that Washington had depended too much on Musharraf by stating, “The United States has never put all of its chips on Musharraf.”] It appears that Bush and his henchmen will continue to support Musharraf, unless it becomes clear that he can not maintain power.
We can expect that there will occasionally be pronouncements from Washington about the need for democratic rule to be restored. After the emergency was declared U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, “Obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid, in part because we have to see what may be triggered by certain statutes.” But this will not be followed up with an aid cutoff to Pakistan as this would thoroughly undermine Musharraf.
On November 5, 20007 Rice met with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri. She stated the U.S. is “second to none in continuing to press for openness in Pakistan, for the rights of opposition in Pakistan and for free and fair elections”. But she also told reporters, “Musharraf has been a good ally in the war on terror. Pakistan has come a very long way since 2001 in its commitment to try and root out extremism, to try to make reforms.”
The Pentagon has also expressed its support for Musharraf after his recent actions. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated, “Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror and he [U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates] is closely following the developments there.” He went on to say the emergency declaration “does not impact our military support of Pakistan.”
The Bush regime needs this ally and it can not risk toppling him without another such ally in the wings. It fears another government of Islamic fundamentalists coming to power like that in Iran. After the emergency was declared, Islamist leader Qazi Hussein Ahmed, who heads the opposition religious alliance, called for street protests with the aim of overthrowing “the military dictator”.
But unlike Iran, this government would come into possession of the nuclear arsenal held by Pakistan. This would upset not only the U.S. but neighboring India which also has nukes and has fought wars with Pakistan. The possibility of a nuclear war between Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan is very real in this region and a nuclear war could spread. If fundamentalists do come to power a U.S. attack on Pakistan is also extremely likely.
If the Pakistani government disintegrates the repercussions will be felt throughout the region and the world. But continuing support for Musharraf is also fraught with problems for the Bush regime and regardless of U.S. support, he could still fall. The U.S. is riding on the back of a tiger and can not dismount without fear of being eaten. The people of the world though have no interest in prolonging either the Musharraf or the Bush regimes. As long as the Bush regime exists, “blowback” will be a fact of life.