Pakistan’s ‘restraint’ at Chicago
May 23rd, 2012
Pakistan has decided not to show its real hand at the Chicago Nato summit and has recoiled to the position taken earlier that the Nato supply route will reopen only after the US has apologised and retreated from its position of using drones inside Pakistani territory. The dramatic scene that some observers (worried about its increasing isolation) had hoped for — of Pakistan returning to the international fold by announcing the reopening — has not taken place.
President Asif Ali Zardari did not make a speech that could have earned him a standing ovation from the 60 heads of state. He was, perhaps, partially looking over his shoulder to Pakistan where the establishment is scared of the reaction that such a ‘capitulation’ will bring in its wake. Contrary to his endlessly supple approach to crises, he made reference to ‘respect’ as a sop to the rough public opinion inside Pakistan. But his real message was packed in what he said next: “The cabinet’s Defence Committee has decided to direct the relevant officials to conclude negotiations for resumption of the Ground Lines of Communication (GLOCS) needed to supply foreign troops in Afghanistan”.
The media back home has focused on the ‘snub’ that President Zardari received from US President Barack Obama for not giving in, ignoring that both presidents were going through a pantomime dictated by domestic politics. When the GLOCS are discussed in the coming days, Pakistan will apply all kinds of formulas to address its real concerns: reformulate the modalities of ‘apology’ and ‘drones’ and get a better deal from the Nato route which may have become a ‘once only’ option to counter the more expensive alternative ‘northern route’ that will isolate Pakistan even more.
No one should ignore that President Zardari also said “the foreign fighters and non-state actors seeking to destabilise Afghanistan and the region, if found on our soil, must be expelled”. He was recalling words used by Pakistan’s parliament while laying down the ground rules for the country’s foreign policy. What is remarkable is that he also explained in his speech why Pakistan was unable to remove the safe havens in North Waziristan which the world has been perceiving as Pakistan military’s plot to cause discomfiture to Nato in Afghanistan: “[Pakistan] would require the support of the international community, both in terms of resources and capacity-building. It will also require measures aimed at the economic well-being of the people of the areas affected by the military action”.
Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was clearly understanding when he said: “We did not anticipate an agreement on the Pakistan transit routes to be reached at this summit. That was not planned”. The summit declaration pointed to future progress on the matter of routes. It said: “The alliance expressed appreciation to Russia and Central Asian governments for allowing supply convoys through their territory while Nato continues to work with Pakistan to reopen the ground lines of communication as soon as possible.”
There are many reasons why Pakistan has been restrained at the Chicago Nato summit about the reopening of the Nato supply route but one powerful reason is the Defence of Pakistan Council (DPC) led by religious leaders and elements known as non-state actors. What is more dangerous is that the political parties opposed to the ruling coalition have lined up behind the DPC and are threatening their own protests, perhaps secretly appreciating the possibility that al Qaeda and the Taliban will oblige by attacking the supply route with suicide bombers.
Pakistan must come out of its internal contradictions perpetuated by terrorism and the compulsion of the national media of presenting a one-sided xenophobic picture for fear of getting their reporters killed. The world is puzzled by the behaviour of the government and military of Pakistan, falsely bitter towards the world and pusillanimous towards the elements that rob the state of its internal sovereignty.
Advice from Mr Erdogan
May 23rd, 2012
In becoming the first foreign leader to address a joint sitting of parliament twice, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered a bromide-ridden speech to his Pakistani counterparts. According to Erdogan, the democratic process is vital to a country’s economy and can help strengthen it. No one will disagree with this, though there may be some who will say that the opposite may also be true: that before one can have democracy, one needs to have a sound economy. Unfortunately, in Pakistan neither seems possible because what we really have is a kleptocracy, and so a speech discussing corruption would have been more relevant. Kleptocracy is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class (military, feudal, businessmen) at the expense of the wider population, often without even the pretense of honest service, such as now. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds. Therefore, we can only agree with the Turkish prime minister on this in a hypothetical way — and perhaps some time in the future we can hope that our existing kleptocracy will morph into a genuine democracy of sorts.
It would also be pertinent to mention that the Turkish prime minister needs to put into action the good advice he has proffered Pakistan in his own country. His government has used Turkey’s strong economy to carry out a series of anti-democratic attacks on the opposition. In some cases, the actions can be justified as rectifying the balance of power in favour of civilians. But opposition civilian politicians, members of academia and many journalists have been arrested. Further, the government continues to behave brutally towards its Kurdish minority and still refuses to accept the Armenian genocide.
As such, a strong economic base in itself will not necessarily strengthen democracy – China is a good example of this although we do believe that China’s growth will eventually stall until it also begins to give its citizens more political freedom. Turkey is not yet a shining example of the country we need to emulate and we think there’s little to be learned in either case from their example because Turkey has not been, and is not, a kleptocracy.