Need for political balance

[AFRMS]

Need for political balance

By Hasan Sadiq

EACH country should have a political system that suits its internal and external situation. While the goal should be to move towards a pure democratic system, a stable, non-democratic political system should be acceptable in the interim.

China is a case in point in that the Chinese are successfully proving to the world that after decades of western interference prior to 1949, stability in the long run is preferable to an unstable democratic system that could be manipulated from the outside.

In Pakistan, there is a need to legitimise a political system that is shared by civilians and the military. This can only be achieved if the people understand the real challenges Pakistan currently faces or has always faced.

Since Pakistan’s birth in 1947, the western world recognised its geographic location as that of a vital frontline state to stall the Soviet Union’s ambitions of an advance towards the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. If this were to happen, occupation of the Middle East oil fields would have been the next goal of the Soviets. Many experts have endorsed this theory.Soon after Pakistan came into existence, in an interview with Margaret Bourke-White, an American journalist, Jinnah said, ‘America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America…If Russia walks in here, the whole world is menaced.’

Therefore, America should be much more interested in pouring money and arms into Pakistan, said Jinnah. This concern of Jinnah and the West proved to be correct when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Had the Soviets succeeded in Afghanistan, their next logical step would have been the invasion of Pakistan to reach the warm waters. For the western world, it was imperative that Pakistan had a civilian or military leadership that would support their geopolitical interests.

In early 1951, Pakistan’s first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan needed to have a balanced foreign policy when it came to the Soviet Union and the United States. While Liaquat Ali Khan continued to weigh Pakistan’s options, he was assassinated on Oct 16, 1951, under most mysterious circumstances.

Once Khwaja Nazimuddin replaced Liaquat Ali Khan, six prime ministers changed hands within the next seven years. None of these managed to survive longer than two years except Mohammad Ali Bogra who was brought into Pakistan from Washington where he was serving as Pakistan’s ambassador.

During an overnight announcement, Bogra replaced Nazimuddin on the orders of Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad. At the time it was openly known that Bogra was the stooge of the American government. It was during Bogra’s tenure that Pakistan became a member of Cento and Seato, both western-backed military alliances designed to stall the Soviet advance into the Middle East and Southeast Asia respectively. It was also during Bogra’s period that Pakistan’s currency was devalued by 25 per cent against the dollar, which was earlier opposed by Nazimuddin.

In 1958, the last of the civilian prime ministers was replaced by Gen Ayub Khan, the first military ruler of Pakistan. Ayub saw the writing on the wall. Not only was Pakistan an economically weak country, it was also dependent on the IMF and the World Bank. Pakistan was woefully divided along linguistic and ethnic lines. Militarily, it was dependent on the US for all its supplies. Any strong outside power had the capability of breaking the country if Pakistan did not have the support of a strong power.

During the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971, the US government had time and again urged the military rulers in West Pakistan to come to some sort of an amicable settlement with Mujib, the leader of East Pakistan, so that war with India could be avoided — even if it meant the creation of Bangladesh.

According to some declassified papers of the US government, Henry Kissinger, then US national security adviser, advised US President Richard Nixon to use the one lever the US had against Pakistan — to hold back IMF aid to make Pakistan reach an understanding with Mujib and agree to the creation of Bangladesh.

The US was desperate to avoid a larger war in the strategically placed West Pakistan, which if attacked by India and backed by the Soviet Union would definitely draw in the United States and China towards a possible Third World War. Loss of West Pakistan to the western world would have meant losing a frontline state to Soviet designs in the Middle East.

It was also during this crisis that Pakistan played a pivotal role in establishing diplomatic contact between the United States and China. To thank President (General) Yahya Khan, on August 7, 1971, President Nixon sent a handwritten note to him: ‘…Those who want a more peaceful world in the generation to come will forever be in your debt.’

In the end, while the incompetent rulers of Pakistan also played a major role in the dismemberment of Pakistan — in West Pakistan a wider war was avoided and Pakistan immediately accepted a US-backed ceasefire in the United Nations. Here the point that needs to be understood is this: Pakistan was a pivotal state in the Cold War and the western powers needed western Pakistan to stall the Soviets.

As the history of Pakistan is immensely complex, for the moment it would be sufficient to understand that what has been described so far is just the tip of the iceberg regarding what Pakistan has faced during its yet young life. Just as Pakistan was pivotal for the western powers during the Cold War, Pakistan is equally crucial today for China’s geopolitical interests. Other countries that are interested in what happens in Pakistan include India, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia. In modern day history no other country in the world has attracted so much outside interest.

With the upcoming general elections in January 2008, there is little doubt that Benazir Bhutto is a US-backed candidate. The Saudis support Nawaz Sharif. He has been their royal guest for the last seven years. The military seems to be playing both sides of the street when it comes to the strategic interests of China and the United States.Under these circumstances, Pakistan’s political and economic infrastructure is simply too weak to have an independent policymaking mechanism. At the same time, it is also crucial to avoid a lopsided power base — civilian or military. From the October 2007 presidential elections it has become clear that the military is desperate to gain civilian acceptance. But that is not enough.

What is needed is an effective constitutional backed political balance of power between the military and civilians. This currently does not exist. If there is consensus, then the question is, what will be the final shape of this military-civilian coexistence? That is the real debate for the intellectuals and the people of Pakistan. And the time for that debate is now.