Tag Archives: Pervez Musharraf

The Fourth Option For US-Pakistan Relations

Joe Biden, Nawaz Sharif, John Kerry, ShahbazSharif

As 2014, and the eventual withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan that will come with it, rapidly approaches, analysts in Washington are working to influence the direction of US policy in the region. Unfortunately, much of what is being bandied about as a new direction looks an awful lot like the well-worn path that brought us where we are today. With the recent handover of power between two democratic governments, it’s time to try something new with Pakistan.

In response to a question about the key constructs of the US engagement with Pakistan post-2014, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Dan Markey recently outlined three options for the US:

  • The United States would devote the bulk of its efforts to protecting itself from Pakistan-based threats (terrorism, nuclear weapons, and general instability) by relying on coercion, deterrence, and closer military cooperation with neighboring India and Afghanistan.
  • The United States would focus on cultivating a businesslike negotiating relationship with Pakistan’s military—still Pakistan’s most powerful institution—in order to advance specific U.S. counterterrorism and nuclear goals.
  • The United States would work with and provide support to Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership as well as civil society in ways that would, over time, tip the scales in favor of greater stability in Pakistan and more peaceful relations between Pakistan and its neighbors, Afghanistan, Iran, India, and China.

At the end of his piece, Markey recommends a combination of all three strategies. But this is exactly the strategy that the US has been pursuing, and to little success. There are several reasons why this policy cannot work. First of all, partnering with India in a policy of coercion is mutually exclusive to developing a productive relationship with Pakistan. More importantly, though, Markey’s recommendations place too much emphasis on continuing to focus on relations with Pakistan’s powerful military at the expense of the democratically elected civilian government. And it is the democratically elected civilian government that is key to ending Pakistan’s problem with militancy.

Nawaz Sharif, having already experienced the consequences of military adventurism during his previous time as Prime Minister, has demonstrated a willingness to confront Pakistan’s military about its alleged involvement with extremist militants. Following the discover of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif was one of the few politicians to demand answers from the military about how the world’s most wanted man could live undetected for years just outside the Kakul Military Academy. And his pursuit of treason charges against former military dictator Pervez Musharraf has united civilian politicians across party lines despite the concerns of some former military officers.

Since being elected Prime Minister earlier this year, Nawaz Sharif has also pursued improved relations with India, including continuing the policy of improving bilateral trade and economic cooperation begun under the previous government.

Dan Markey’s approach would threaten the progress that is currently being made by breathing new life into military dominance just as the civilians are starting to get a strong foothold, and driving a wedge into Pakistan-India relations just as they are on the brink of a breakthrough.

Rather than reprise past policies, the US should take the fourth option: Treating the democratically elected civilian government as the legitimate policy-making authority; providing significant support for civil society by investing in domestic capacity building for key areas including education, energy, and law enforcement; and using its growing influence to reassure India that continuing to work towards improved trade and economic relations are the most effective path towards boosting Pakistan’s national security perception and eliminating its reliance on militant groups as part of their national security strategy.

For decades, the US has pursued a relationship that overemphasizes the military’s power, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the military is “still Pakistan’s most powerful institution” at the expense of democratic progress, civil development, and regional security. It’s time to try something new.

Pakistan’s “Suprema Lex”

Pervez Musharraf and Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry

The English-langauge daily Dawn reports today that a sense of foreboding has taken over Islamabad, where politicians and analysts fear the possibility that Pakistan could be heading towards an extended caretaker government – what some call the “Bangladesh model” after that country’s flirtation with unelected technocratic governance in 2006. Such a move would require validation from the Supreme Court, though, raising questions about whether the current Court would give sanction to such a measure. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe they might.

Pakistan’s Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, is best known as the man who was removed from the bench and placed under house arrest by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 2007. What is less often remembered, though, is Iftikhar Chaudhry’s role in facilitating Gen. Musharraf’s 1999 coup against the democratically elected PML-N government, and his giving sanction to Gen. Musharraf’s changes to the constitution in 2002.

In 1999, Gen. Pervez Musharraf deposed then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government in a military coup and promulgated the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) of 1999 declaring a state of emergency and suspending the Constitution. Gen. Musharraf ordered judges to take a new oath under the PCO, which many refused. Iftikhar Chaudhry was not one of them. In 1999, Iftikhar Chaudhry chose to take an oath of allegiance to Gen. Musharraf’s new military dictatorship.

Some might argue that Chaudhry was only doing what he had to in order to maintain a check on the new dictator, but this wasn’t the last time that Iftikhar Chaudhry gave judicial cover to Gen. Musharraf’s exploits. In 2000, Justice Chaudhry joined the Supreme Court in dismissing challenges to Gen. Musharraf’s coup. The Court, in its own words, “validated the extra-constitutional step on the touchstone of the doctrine of state necessity and the principle of salus populi suprema lex [trans. “Let the good of the people be the supreme law”].”

In 2002, Justice Chaudhry again joined the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss petitions against Gen. Musharraf’s 2002 Legal Framework Order (LFO) which amended the constitution to, among other things, give Gen. Musharraf the power to dissolve parliament at will.

In 2005, Justice Chaudhry was one of five Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold Gen. Musharraf’s 17th Amendment to the Constitution, further giving judicial cover to exta-constitutional measures.

Justice Chaudhry’s long history of validating Gen. Musharraf’s extra-constitutional measures has led to the perception among some that he is a military stooge, and that his battles with Pakistan’s current democratically elected government are a sign that he is facilitating a “judicial coup” at the military’s behest. Things are not so simple.

Justice Chaudhry’s support for Gen. Musharraf’s dictatorship earned him the position of Chief Justice in 2005, but his independence earned him a suspension only two years later when he began to find against the military government. In one of many political missteps by the military dictator, Gen. Musharraf placed Chaudhry and his entire family under house arrest, making Chaudhry a political martyr and expediting his own downfall.

After being reinstated by President Asif Zardari, Justice Chaudhry has continued to use the court not only as a tool against civilian officials, but against Pakistan’s military intelligence agencies, publicly taking them to task for illegally detaining terror suspects. This is often cited by the Chief Justice’s supporters as further proof of his independence.

Whether or not Iftikhar Chaudhry is colluding with the military or not is the wrong question. The right question is whether he is acting within the constitutional confines of his own institution. Unfortunately, several of his past legal decisions suggest Justice Chaudhry subscribes to a jurisprudence that does not recognize constitutional confines, instead seeing his role as an independent political activist.

Justice Chaudhry claims that he no longer supports the “doctrine of necessity,” but with the introduction of the “basic structure doctrine,” he may no longer need it. The Chief Justice now has a tool that not only allows him to interpret the Constitution, but to define it.

As Pakistan proceeds towards national elections next March, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has the opportunity to demonstrate whether he really has turned his back on the “doctrine of necessity”, or if his recently stated belief that “We should only examine our own constitution to ensure that the will of the people prevails,” indicates that he still sees himself as the guardian of salus populi suprema lex. For the sake of Pakistan’s democracy, we hope it is the former.

Musharraf: Dictatorship Good, “No Comment” on his role Bhutto assassination

Gen. Pervez MusharrafDeposed Pakistan dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf spoke with BBC about the recent pro-democracy movements in the Middle East. During his interview, Musharraf stated that “good dictatorship is better than bad democracy.”

Asked about his role in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and whether he had any prior knowledge of the attack, Musharraf replied, “I don’t want to discuss that.”

This latest statement of Musharraf’s anti-democratic political philosophy comes a week after the former dictator defended torture under his regime. Asked by BBC’s Peter Taylor if he believes “the ends justifies the means,” Gen. Musharraf answered, “Yes,” and went on to say that the British government gave “tacit approval for whatever we were doing.” The British government denies that any approval, tacit or otherwise, was given for torture.

Pakistan Can Serve As A Guide To Burgeoning Islamic Democracies

Pro-democracy demonstrations across the Arab world remind us that Islam and democracy are not only compatible, but, as we are increasingly seeing, Muslims across the world yearn for freedom and self-determination. Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies observes in today’s New York Times that “the idea of democracy had become a potent force among Muslims, and authoritarianism had become the midwife to Islamic extremism,” phenomena brilliantly explained by Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in her final book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West.

Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the WestBenazir Bhutto posited that there are two elements primarily responsible for the lack of democratization in Muslim-majority countries: The battle within Islamic factions for “raw political and economic power” and “a long colonial period that drained developing countries of both natural and human resources.”

Despite these obstacles, Pakistan has a democratically elected government going into its third year; Tunisia’s dictator for a quarter-century has been forced from power; Egypt’s Tahrir square is overflowing with Muslims demanding the right to choose their own leaders. These developments have received mixed reactions in the West. Too many continue to fear that elections in Muslim-majority country will result in the “wrong” people gaining power and voters will not wake up in liberal democracies promoting post-enlightenment values. This is the wrong lens through which to view the rise of democracy in the Muslim world. As Benazir Bhutto wisely observed, “Democracies do not spring up fully developed overnight.”

It is here that Pakistan can serve as a valuable guide along the path of democratization in the Muslim world. Having gained freedom from the dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf in 2008, Pakistanis have been strengthening democratic governance, learning to balance political and national priorities, and creating an inclusive process that represents the aspirations of all Pakistanis.

That is not to say that there have been no mistakes, no set backs. But this is the nature of democracy. The difference this time is that mistakes and set backs are Pakistani in nature and not imposed by an outside power or an authoritarian dictator. As such, they can be learned from and reformed, and negative impacts will lack the permanence that they would otherwise. Benazir Bhutto described this process eloquently in Reconciliation:

We must think of a new democracy like a seedling that must be nourished, watered, fed, and given time to develop into a mighty tree. Thus, when democratic experiments are prematurely interrupted or disrupted, the effects can be, if not permanent, certainly long-lasting. Internal or external interruptions of democracy (both elections and governance) can have effects that ripple and linger over generations.

As we wrote on Friday, the US needs to give Pakistan’s democracy space to grow. This applies, of course, to all burgeoning democracies in the Muslim-majority nations. Islam and democracy are not incompatible, but will peacefully co-exist if allowed to grow and flourish naturally.

The political situation in Pakistan may appear volatile, and indeed the path of democracy, as our own history illustrates, is wrought with missteps. But there are no short cuts to democracy, and attempts to trade progress for stability will produce neither. Given nurturing and support, however, Pakistan can continue to serve as a guide to Muslims across the world who are struggling themselves for the ability to determine their own future.

Pakistan's Activist Media

Geo TV: "Entertainment, News, Infotainment"Americans are well familiar with accusations of political bias in media. It’s become a standard complaint among politicians and their supporters that the reporting by certain journalists and news agencies reflects a particular political agenda, rather than unbiased facts. But, as recent weeks have demonstrated, the American media has nothing on Pakistan when it comes to political activism.
Continue reading

Greater Threat Than Floods: Pakistan's Judiciary?

The historic flooding that has ravaged Pakistan was considered for a brief period to be a grave threat to the country’s stability. Analysts were unsure if the young democratic government would be able to provide relief and reconstruction services enough to satisfy a panicking public. As the waters subsided, though, the civilian government demonstrated that it could work with the military and the international community to provide services to the people. Today, however, the government faces a possibly greater challenge: continued attacks from the nation’s judiciary.

Pakistan’s judiciary has been threatening to topple the democratically elected government in what many are calling a “coup by other means”. While unprecedented challenges to elected officials have been going on for some time, the courts appear to be determined to continue their attacks.

Since its December judgment striking down an amnesty that shielded President Asif Ali Zardari and other officials from old criminal allegations, the top court has pressed the government on corruption, in particular a dated money-laundering case against Zardari. The stakes have risen as repeated government delays have stoked frustration within the army and the political opposition. Another showdown is scheduled for Wednesday, when the court could hold the prime minister in contempt or indicate that it will reconsider Zardari’s presidential immunity from prosecution.

The standoff has cemented the Supreme Court’s position as a central player in Pakistan’s nascent democracy. But it has also highlighted questions about the solidity of that system.

The Army has largely stayed out of the affair, though as Ahmed Rashid writes for BBC, they would stand to gain the most should the courts succeed in overthrowing the government.

It would be a constitutional rather than a military coup, so that Western donors helping Pakistan with flood relief would not be unduly put off, but the army would gain even more influence if it were to happen.

The courts, for their part, are attacking the government from two flanks – the Supreme Court is threatening to disqualify President Asif Zardari more than two years since his election, and the Lahore High Court – headed by Chief Justice Khawaja Sharif, an ardent supporter of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) – has reinstated an old corruption conviction against Interior Minister Rehman Malik, despite his having been pardoned in May.

According to a growing number of voices in the legal community, the politicization of Pakistan’s courts is a growing problem that threatens the stability of the government and the legitimacy of the nation’s judiciary.

“This judge and the court have embarked upon politics,” said lawyer Khurram Latif Khosa, whose father, also a lawyer, advises Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. “The lawyers who were chanting slogans in their favor are now burning effigies of their idols.”

Mr. Khosa is not alone in his analysis. His statement echoes the sentiments of Supreme Court advocate and human rights activist Asma Jahangir who wrote in December of last year:

While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial.

Witch-hunts, rather than the impartial administration of justice, will keep the public amused. The norms of justice will be judged by the level of humiliation meted out to the wrongdoers, rather than strengthening institutions capable of protecting the rights of the people.

There is no doubt that impunity for corruption and violence under the cover of politics and religion has demoralised the people, fragmented society and taken several lives. It needs to be addressed but through consistency, without applying different standards, and by scrupulously respecting the dichotomy of powers within statecraft. In this respect the fine lines of the judgment do not bode well.

The lawyers’ movement and indeed the judiciary itself has often lamented that the theory of separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive has not been respected. The NRO judgment has disturbed the equilibrium by creating an imbalance in favour of the judiciary.

A few months later, Ms. Jahangir’s tone turned decidedly more dire.

People will soon witness a judicial dictatorship in the country if the judiciary continuously moves ahead in its present direction and then we would forget military and political dictatorships, HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir said on Wednesday.

By April, even opposition politicians the PML-N were raising concerns that the courts were over-stepping their constitutional role to topple the government.

Raising concerns about the conspiracy, PML-N spokesman and senior leader Ahsan Iqbal has said that a third force wants a clash between the judiciary and parliament.

Iqbal did not name the third force precisely in the same fashion, as Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has repeatedly done in recent months, The News reports.

According to another PML-N leader, the Army is trying to pitch the judiciary against parliament and for this purpose it is using certain elements in the media.

Recently, Pakistan’s Chief Justice issued a statement condemning those who are speaking out against perceived judicial overreach.

Ironically, the Chief Justice who is leading this assault on the government, Iftikhar Chaudhry, was himself the victim of extra-constitutional removal by then President and Chief of Army Staff Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Justice Chaudhry was released from detention by Pakistan’s newly elected government in 2008, and reinstated to the Supreme Court in 2009.

Some believe that during the year between Justice Chaudhry’s release from detention and his reinstatement, the judge grew to resent the new government and has taken it upon himself to bring a myriad of legal challenges to its authority. In fact, many of the cases before the court were not brought by any individual or official agency, but were taken up “suo moto” – by the choosing of the Chief Justice, himself.

Regardless of what is motivating the incessant attacks by members of Pakistan’s judiciary, the right to decide the nation’s leadership rests solely with the people of Pakistan. Military generals, religious clerics, and judicial appointees all have a role to play in the success of the nation. But each must work within the bounds of the constitution and the democratic process. Whether led by the military, the Taliban, or an army in black robes, a coup is a coup – and any coup will be devastating to Pakistan’s future.

The History that Haunts Us

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif)
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif) addressing a gathering of the Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America (APPNA)

I was struck this morning by an editorial in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, “America & dictators.” I was taken aback not because the editorial was criticizing my country, but because it served as a reminder of the history of supporting undemocratic regimes that haunts us, and the vital importance of addressing it openly.

Though our memories in the United States may be short, conditioned for too long by 30-second TV commercials and 6-second sound bites, memories in most of the world are much longer. Most Americans are probably unaware of their country’s involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup that overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and reinstalled the dictatorship of the Shah. But just because we are unaware of this misguided adventure doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is.

Pakistanis, in particular, are well aware of our choosing to support dictators Gen. Zia-ul-Haq and Gen. Musharraf when our short-term policy goals found these regimes convenient.

The editors of Dawn, then, ask a valid question:

In our case America’s response to military coups has followed a strikingly similar pattern: initial condemnation or criticism, then endorsement and finally whole-hearted support for the junta in question. Mr Berman is no doubt sincere when he says that the US wants to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan. But what guarantee do Pakistanis have that the self-styled champion of democracy will not play the same old game if the tide somehow turns? Can the US confirm in no uncertain terms that it will never support a Pakistani dictator again irrespective of circumstances?

This lingering doubt about whether the US is a long-term partner of Pakistani democracy, or if our past mistakes are a predictor of the future must be addressed. Moreover, this is why ill-informed and misleading journalism is counterproductive for American interests.

Rep. Berman’s (D-Calif.) remarks before the Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America (APPNA) are a necessary, but not sufficient step towards addressing Pakistani concerns about America’s commitment to democracy in their country. It is only through our actions that we will be able to regain the trust of the Pakistani people and strengthen our long-term partnership with this burgeoning democracy.

We should do this by continuing our commitment to Pakistan’s national security, our investments in civilian aid and infrastructure, and our vocal support for democracy in the country.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has extended a hand of friendship to the US. it is imperative that we return the gesture.

True democracy in Pakistan can prevent extremism

Dr. Majjida Ahmed, a founding member of Americans for Democracy & Justice in Pakistan, has an op-ed in today’s Daily Caller that examines the relationship between cementing a strong democratic process in Pakistan, and the prevention of extremist violence.

What turns middle-class young people from Pakistan, like Faisal Shahzad, toward militant extremism? It’s important to note that Shahzad spent his youth in Pakistan during the military rule of hard-line General Zia al-Huq, who instituted a school curriculum that taught intolerance towards religions other than Islam and promoted militancy. And it isn’t just military dictatorships that have bred intolerance. According to Sherry Rehman, the former Information Minister, rampant conspiracy theories and unchecked hate speech against Americans in the Pakistan media may also be playing a part in radicalizing some of the country’s youth.

Pakistan’s military has been historically reluctant to act against militant groups like Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (“TTP”), which originally claimed responsibility for the attempt, until a civilian government came to power. Since President Asif Ali Zardari took power, the public and the government have been able to press the military into successful operations against these groups. That is why it is so critical for the United States to focus not just on aiding Pakistan’s military but on strengthening Pakistan’s democratic institutions by encouraging responsible participation by all constituents, including the media, opposition and judiciary. That is what the elected government of President Asif Ali Zardari has been trying to achieve, despite severe and irresponsible pressure against such moves by its opponents in those same groups—pressure which arguably supports extremism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/11/true-democracy-in-pakistan-can-prevent-extremism/

UN Report Reminds of Vital Importance of Supporting Democracy in Pakistan

A United Nations Commission yesterday released a report on the facts and circumstances of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.[PDF] While stopping short of pronouncing criminal guilt, the report serves as a searing indictment of General Pervez Musharraf and the actions – or lack thereof – of authorities under his regime. While the report will likely spur criminal investigations in Pakistan, it serves as a harsh reminder of the vital importance of supporting the struggling movement for democracy in Pakistan.

Continue reading

The Restoration of Democracy, A Historic Moment for Pakistan

Though Pakistan continues to face a number of challenges, in its struggle for democracy it is, perhaps, a lesson for other nascent democracies. By tabling a package of constitutional reforms that will repeal several aberrations adopted under dictatorships in the 1980s and 1990s, the democratic government of Pakistan has achieved a landmark in democracy and brought hope to people around the world.

Events over the past week have sent a ripple of hope and optimism through the nation and its diaspora as the government prepares to right past wrongs and prove that, even as dictators attempt to preserve their misrule through constitutional vandalism, the natural desire for freedom will always overcome their tyranny. English-language daily, The Daily Times wrote on Sunday,

With the strengthening of parliament, the provinces, local governments, dispute resolution amongst the provinces and with the centre, transparent appointments of chief election commissioners and the superior judiciary, the citizens of Pakistan can draw a sigh of relief and feel justly proud of the consensus-building inherent capability of a democracy, the odd hiccup notwithstanding. This is an all too rare moment to celebrate in our national life, and it would be best to let bygones be bygones and not labour the respective contributions (negative and positive) of all the parties to this historic compact.

Washington-based attorney and former Pakistani military officer Mohsin Awan wrote this past weekend that the constitutional reforms represent “The Greatest Moment in Pakistani Democracy.”

This week may very well be remembered in Pakistan as the greatest point in the restoration of democracy in its 63 year history. Yesterday, after a year long legislative effort led by President Asif Ali Zardari and his Pakistan Peoples Party in the National Assembly of Pakistan, agreement was finally reached on the most dramatic and sweeping constitutional changes in Pakistan’s history, restoring the 1973 Pakistani Constitution, which created a Pakistani parliamentary democracy based on the British Westminster model.

That Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, has voluntarily pushed through a package of constitutional reforms that will repeal power consolidation by previous presidents is an unprecedented move that will secure his place in the history books as a leader who put his nation before his personal interest. Again, from Mohsin Awan:

Contrary to those who would belittle him, Asif Zardari is hardly a recent convert to the restoration of the 1973 Constitution. President Zardari had planned to complete the transition to democracy and to return the country to the foundations of the 1973 constitution from his first day in office. During his address to the joint sitting of the parliament last year, he advised the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Fahmida Mirza, to immediately form a constitutional committee comprising representatives of all political forces in the parliament to look at not only doing away with the arbitrary amendments including the infamous 17th amendment inserted by the dictator but also to settle the question of provincial autonomy according to the wishes of the federating units. He called upon his party in Parliament to enact a package of constitutional reforms as quickly as possible.

Irrespective of what his detractors may like to say, the fact is that Zardari has ungrudgingly consented, as was his original promise and intention, to forgo the powers conferred on the President under the 17th amendment thus implementing the public commitment of his wife and of our Party. He is not being “stripped of his power” as some have characterized it either out of ignorance or mischief, but rather has been in the vanguard of democratic change. The constitutional committee that was created at his request, specifically for this purpose, has completed its job and the reform package will be put before the National Assembly on Thursday and the Senate on Friday.

Letters to newspapers in Pakistan echo these sentiments of optimism among the Pakistani public.

Perhaps it can be dubbed the best constitutional package after the 1973 Constitution. It has a great deal of resemblance to the original 1973 Constitution, as the former like the later — is expected to be unanimous when it is finally passed by parliament.

Credit goes to all stakeholders in parliament, the media, lawyers and the President without whose generosity and cooperation such an achievement was not possible, at least in a friendly environment.

An atmosphere of optimism would develop in the country. At large, all provinces — especially the smaller ones — would regain their powers. A sense of deprivation prevailing in the smaller provinces would decrease to a considerable level.

After decades of constitutional manipulation and bold power grabs by dictators Ziaul Haq and Musharraf, Pakistan is teaching the world a lesson in democratic governance.