The article resonates with lots of my thoughts on the subject matter.
Link: http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_5913206
******************************
By David Paul Brown
Article Launched: 05/17/2007 01:00:00 AM PDT
When Spain’s previous leader backed President Bush in going into Iraq, he was beaten handily when he was up for re-election. Ditto for the head of Italy. Britain’s Tony Blair is being pushed out of 10 Downing Street earlier than he anticipated, almost entirely because of backing Bush.
Now it appears that the president’s most important ally in the Middle East, Pakistan ‘s President Musharraf, may be on the ropes.
Monday in the San Francisco Chronicle, former American diplomat Ed Gomez wrote about the current state of affairs in Pakistan .
He said, “If President Musharraf falls, it won’t be good for Team Bush to have aided him for so long, literally buying his support in its aimless war on terror. If Musharraf uses heavy handed tactics to crush Pakistan ‘s pro-democracy movement, that won’t look good either for a U.S. administration that still claims to be a big promoter of democracy around the world.”
Don’t forget Musharraf came to power under a military coup as he essentially stole the election in 1999. The Chief Justice of Pakistan’s High Court, Iftikhar Chaudry, was fired by Musharraf last month for nepotism. Some claim the reason was bogus. Many in the legal community are backing Chaudry. Last Saturday as Chaudry flew into Karachi , the financial center of Pakistan , a riot erupted between Musharraf’s backers and his opponents. The result of the bedlam? Forty people killed, more than 100 injured and dozens of vehicles torched. The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), backs the Musharraf. They have been known for using extortion to raise money and have been cited for human-rights abuses according to Amnesty International.
Gomez claims, “President Musharraf’s position is dangerously weak now. He’s viewed as a illegitimate figure by most of the population, and the prospect of being attacked by the nation’s legal establishment – almost unprecedented in history – has highlighted this shortcoming.”
The irony is of course, that U.S. military people have accused Musharraf of giving both the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan. Groups that promoted democracy in Pakistan have been oppressed and even jailed under his rule. But Bush still says he’s our guy. I know Musharraf is walking a tightrope, trying to back the U.S. in fighting terrorism, but not too vociferously so as to get his administration overthrown or get himself killed. There have been two attempts on his life by his fellow Pakistanis.
But once again, America finds itself in a spot it has been in too many times before, under presidents and Congresses of both parties.
We support a dictator because we think he’ll work with us and serve our geopolitical and financial interests. Invariably the poor masses sign on with whatever group or ideology that throws them a lifeline, and one that often has enmity toward the U.S. Why? Because they see us funding and supporting the very people oppressing them.
True, sometimes they’ve chosen communist regimes. But other times they’ve chosen to stand with the Christian church.
Sometimes they act in a violent fashion. But other times they’re peaceful and just want basic human rights and dignity. This has happened worldwide for decades, but has been especially pronounced in South and Central America and Africa .
This seems to be the lesson America never learns, or maybe doesn’t want to learn. It’s bigger than backing the leader of Pakistan , even though he’s played us like a violin. It goes to the core of what country do we want to represent to the world. Yes, I know the opposite arguments to mine. They go like this. “We may have to back a devil but it’s the devil we know.” “He’s an SOB but he’s our SOB.” “They’ll be anarchy if we don’t support this guy.”
The thinking is, if we want them to buy our goods, we have to set up U.S. companies in their country and employ them. Of course we pay the local workers virtually nothing and ignore worker and human rights. But we endear ourselves to their upper class who have the money and the clout to further our interests. It’s as if Manifest Destiny, and White Man’s Burden were empirical truths and never faded into history. And on it goes, ad infinitum.
My point is yes, it may serve you and me as to nominal fees on goods, maybe even a higher standard of living, but ultimately at what cost? The cost is much of the world turning on us? Osama bin Laden has said his primary problem with the U.S. was that we were in his country of Saudi Arabia, too near the two holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina, and closely aligned with the Saud dynasty, who he sees as corrupt and oppressive.
I’ve never totally bought the line from President Bush the Islamic terrorists hate us because of our wealth, our modernity, our way of life.
There may be some jealously, they may see us as too sexually promiscuous, shun our alcohol use, and think our religions aren’t genuine.
But as Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul pointed out at the GOP debate Tuesday, the terrorist’s main problem with us is we’re in their countries, telling them what to do and supporting people they don’t like. And they see us as profiting economically from their misery.
Not to mention we should be going after terrorists with Interpol, the CIA, FBI and their equivalents in the respective countries of our allies, and the police. The idea that we’re using the military is absurd on its face. You don’t use the military to fight people with no uniforms, no home base, no country, often no allegiance to anyone but a small group, no trading partners, that transacts all its business incognito, or under the radar. But alas, that’s another newspaper column for another day.
Is our government correct to support Pakistan under President Musharraf, despite his two-faced policy towards us and cruel treatment of democratic dissenters in his own country?
Perhaps, but I don’t have to like it.