Pakistan’s constitutional coup: What awaits under an unaccountable, all-powerful Field Marshal?

Naya Daur - SH

The Defense Post - SH

The Globe Post - SH

Counterpunch - SH

Daily Times Pakistan - SH

Trump and Bibi’s Dangerous Dream of Regime Change

https://intpolicydigest.org/trump-and-bibi-s-dangerous-dream-of-regime-change/

Chasing a mirage

After 35 years of civil war and 15 years of the US led-intervention, prospects for peace in Afghanistan are bleak. The much- touted Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process is a mirage. It is apparent that the vicious cycle of violence will continue unabated for the foreseeable future. The recent death of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a US drone strike in Pakistan seems inconsequential. The Taliban are not wilting under the pressure enough to bring them to the negotiating table. Overall, the balance of power remains unchanged and the military status quo persists. The principal reason that peace in not on the cards in Afghanistan are the divergent goals and objectives of the warring parties and the external players involved in the conflict. For instance, Pakistan’s incomprehensible Afghan policy is a serious impediment to bringing peace to Afghanistan. In a nutshell, Pakistani is fine with the joys of Taliban rule in Afghanistan but does not want the same for itself. It is opposed to the enforcement of harsh Taliban religious laws in Pakistan but quite satisfied if they are imposed in Afghanistan. It battles the Pakistan Taliban, but provides safe haven and logistical support to its ideological cousin, the Afghan Taliban. It whines over lost sovereignty when the US frustrated with the lack of success in the peace talks takes out a Taliban leader on its territory. Clearly, confidence-building measures and incentives will not bring the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table. They are unlikely to renounce their objective of regaining political power and territorial control. The Taliban underpinned by a hard-line ideology are on a quest to re-establish the Islamic emirate in Afghanistan. Sharing political power in a democratic system would be an anathema and would dilute support for the movement. Therefore, it is imperative that other parties particularly Pakistan do more to end Taliban intransigence. At this moment, there is a glaring lack of trust between the purported allies Pakistan and the US, who are the main external players in the Afghan conflict. Neither the US’s fight-talk nor Pakistan’s talk-talk strategies seem to be working in Afghanistan. The US strategy seeks to weaken the Taliban sufficiently to allow the Afghan people to safely reject it; develop Afghan security forces so that Afghans can defend themselves as US troops leave; and, through an enhanced civilian effort, help the Afghan government sustain the support of its people by providing basic services. However, the Taliban have been resilient, reminding one of the Viet Cong in Indo-China, as they keep coming back despite heavy losses and technological disadvantages. The Taliban strategy of wearing down the enemy and re-capturing lost territory, even holding it for short periods, seems to be working. On the other hand, the National Unity Government led by Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah appears weak. The government is dogged by allegations of corruption and incompetence. It is sincere and anxious to make peace but it cannot seem to get rid of the tag of being a US ‘puppet’. It can try to do all it can to create an environment conducive to reconciliation. But as long as the Taliban sense that government will collapse once the US leaves they will play the wait-and-see game. For obvious security reasons, government cannot agree to the Taliban’s main precondition for peace talks, which is the complete withdrawal of US-led foreign forces from Afghanistan. Many Afghans would oppose a return to harsh Taliban rule despite the shortcomings of the Ghani government. Some progress has been made on women’s rights, freedom of expression, education and democratic values that the Taliban do not share. Under the Taliban rule, girls were prohibited from attending school; women were entirely shunned from public life; boys were forbidden to play sports; music was banned. To paraphrase the author John Steinbeck, “All conflict is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.” In Afghanistan, all parties must think their way out of the quagmire. Some obvious approaches come to mind: 1) All countries agree to act against the common threat emanating from the network of like-minded terrorist groups in the region 2) Pakistan is persuaded to dropping the Taliban as a useful hedge in a post-US Afghanistan 3) the US accepts an Afghan government that incorporates the Taliban 4) Afghanistan ensures that its territory is not used against its neighbours 5) Political reforms in Afghanistan grant a greater voice to a broader range of Afghan interests, such as local and provincial leaders, political parties, and parliament. The Afghan government needs a wider base of political support than it currently enjoys and its institutions are able to deliver 6) Taliban are convinced that their dream of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan is unrealistic and will remain unfulfilled. It should be made clear to the Taliban that if they persist in their campaign, they would face the full military might of Pakistan and the US on both sides of the porous border.

Pakistan and India: the dance of ruin

Pakistan and India once again are at loggerheads. This seems to be one of the bleakest and darkest phases in the 70-year history of mutual conflict. What is most depressing is that there isn’t any way out. The two countries appear locked in a dance of ruin, hell-bent on destroying one another in a slow process of attrition. Rabid nationalism, unimaginative leadership and sensationalist journalism have stoked popular resentments. This is robbing the scores of exploited and poor people in Pakistan and India the hope of a better and secure future. Both countries share responsibility for what has developed into one of the most adversarial, belligerent and intractable international relationships of modern times. Apart from the perennial issue of Kashmir, Pakistan and India have polluted their relationship by projecting each other as public enemy number one. Statesmanship is on hold as bellicose rhetoric and brinkmanship takes centrestage. It is discouraging to witness the delirious enthusiasm of armchair warriors on the possibility of a decisive conflict between the two countries. Such a conflict may involve a calamitous nuclear exchange, assuring mutual destruction. In Pakistan, security policy drives overall foreign policy rather than the other way round. Historically, fragile civilian governments have allowed the military establishment to exercise control over foreign policy, especially the relationship with India. The elected leadership is unable to formulate policies that promote peace and regional integration. Moreover, nuclear protection has allowed hawks in Pakistan to provoke localised conflicts involving lesser arms against India. Furthermore, Narendra Modi’s ascension to power and his aggressive projection of India’s rising political influence, economic and military prowess has heightened Pakistan’s insecurities. Nevertheless, a recent positive development in Pakistan is the growing awareness of the dangers of coddling non-state jihadist groups. In India, terrorist attacks attributed to Pakistan based groups have quite understandably generated fear and hatred. Clearly, India has every right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. But building walls between states and peoples while psychologically reassuring do not solve problems. Moreover, launching public diplomacy campaigns that entirely focus on isolating Pakistan for abetting cross-border terrorism is counter-productive. Pakistan and India would be better served by a common front against terrorism, which continues to be responsible for blood and tears in both countries. This approach could better combat the unending cycle of provocation and response. Despite the shared animosity, the two neighbours, unable to change geography, are destined to live together. They cannot avoid continuing their turbulent negotiations, interactions and engagements. However, any problem-solving dialogue has to be based on a positive-sum approach where the two countries must compromise by acknowledging each other’s concerns and demands. By making these kinds of adjustments, the dialogue partners can avoid stumbling into war. Dialogue is also a process that takes time and in which continuity is necessary. The first step to resolve any form of conflict is to manage the conflict-resolution process itself. The starting point in any peace process is that both sides recognise existing ground realities, strengths and weaknesses and limits of flexibility, which are prerequisites to effective negotiation and relationship building. While there is little doubt that the power equation in South Asia has permanently shifted in India’s favour, a nuclear-armed Pakistan cannot be easily isolated. Pakistan can count on its ‘strategic’ partnership with China, the world’s second power with its expanding economic influence and military might. However, from previous examples in its troubled history, it would be a mistake for Pakistan to shape its relationship with India exclusively around an unsustainable arms race, costly nuclear deterrence or a single strategic partnership. Pakistan requires a broader engagement with India more than just convincing its larger neighbour that terrorism is a common threat, and that the Kashmir issue needs to be resolved to defeat terrorism. On the other hand, although India would be pleased to see a demilitarised Pakistan it would not be comfortable with a failed state as a neighbour. This could impact India’s own progress and prosperity. Indian policy makers probably realise that in aspiring to become a global power, India will have to shoulder greater responsibilities. This greater responsibility includes encouraging coexistence with Pakistan, and not the destruction of a smaller neighbour. On Kashmir, it is obvious that the present Line of Control is something that all parties to the dispute will have to accept sooner or later. India needs to improve the appalling conditions in Kashmir and grant its people greater autonomy, while Pakistan has to give up its fantasy of seizing the territory. Overall, Pakistan and India have a huge stake in maintaining stability and security in South Asia. Both countries retain the right to defend their national security interests. But their policies must equally reflect a basic harmony with the core values prevalent in today’s international community. These pertain to the wish of establishing international coalitions through collective diplomacy, joint struggle against international terror, aspirations for regional cooperation, respect for human rights and rejection of hegemony in any form.

The fragile foundations of democracy

Arguably, the inability to build a forward-looking or modern political system has contributed greatly to the civilisational decline of Muslims. Currently, many Muslim countries remain authoritarian states devoid of transparency, rule of law, an independent judiciary, fully contested political pluralism, freedom of expression, press and the media, and an institutionalised separation of civilian and military rule as the latter continues to intervene in governmental decision-making and is unaccountable to elected civilian leaders. The democratic vacuum engenders despotism, fanaticism and misery, which today threaten the wider world. Indeed, Winston Churchill’s famous metaphor about dictators riding on tigers encapsulates the entire politics of significant swathes of the Muslim world. The tigers are a symbol for the people whom the dictators rule. The dictators use them as if they were beasts of burden. But unlike horses or mules, a tiger can kill and eat a human, so Churchill was saying that the oppressed people will rise up and overthrow the dictators. Hopes soared five years ago when a wave of unrest across the region led to the overthrow of four dictators — in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen — and to a clamour for change elsewhere, notably in Syria. But the Arab Spring’s fruit has rotted into renewed autocracy and war. Why key Muslim countries have so miserably failed to establish democracy, happiness or (aside from the windfall of oil) wealth for their people is one of the important questions of our time. What makes Muslim societies vulnerable to odious regimes and extremists bent on destroying them (and their perceived allies in the west)? Part of the answer certainly lies in the fact that the preconditions for democracy are lacking in the Muslim world. Monarchs, generals and clerics have stymied political evolution by emasculating the news media, suppressing intellectual inquiry, restricting artistic expression, banning political parties and co-opting regional, ethnic and religious organisations to silence dissenting voices. Moreover, existing feudalism, tribalism and traditionalism in Muslim societies tend to divide and destroy. These factors are major stumbling blocks to accommodating popular aspirations. Furthermore, regressive reinterpretations of Islam are at the core of some of the deep troubles in the Muslim world today. The claim, promoted by many of the leading lights in Islam, to combine spiritual and earthly authority, with no separation of mosque and state, has stunted the development of free political institutions. But the inadequacies of Muslim civil societies also have historical causes that transcend the policies of present dictators. Before the establishment of colonial regimes in the late 19th century, Muslim rulers enjoyed absolute power. With the connivance of pliant ulema (religious scholars), Muslim rulers hindered the development of autonomous and self-governing private organisations. Such a political setting prevented democratic institutions from taking root and ultimately facilitated the rise of current Muslim dictatorships. Many Muslim religious scholars and jurists refer to positive forms of democracy as Islamic democracy. On the other hand, they regard forms of irreligious or liberal ‘western’ democracy as evil ideologies, advising Muslims that they are religiously obliged to fight those kinds of secular principles and ideas. These scholars believe that, at the core of all kinds of racism, colonialism, communism and western capitalism, the dominant common ideological factor is anti-religious secularism. This spurious distinction between good and bad democracy serves as fodder for Muslim extremists in their relentless battle against ‘corrupt and hated’ western ideologies. The contempt for liberal democratic values is one more reason why Muslim countries have not yet succeeded in fostering the institutional prerequisites of democracy: the give-and-take of parliamentary discourse, protection for minorities, the emancipation of women, a free press, independent courts, universities and trade unions. Democracy requires checks and balances, and it is largely through civil society that citizens protect their rights as individuals, force policy makers to accommodate their interests and limit abuses of state authority. Civil society also promotes a culture of bargaining and gives future leaders the skills to articulate ideas, form coalitions and govern. Regrettably, Muslim civil society remains shallow by world standards. This chronic weakness of civil society suggests that viable Muslim democracies — or the leaders who could govern them — will not emerge anytime soon. A stronger civil society alone will not bring about democracy. But without a strong civil society, dictators will yield power except in the face of foreign intervention. Another significant challenge to the establishment of democratic institutions in the Muslim world is the unwillingness of western powers, particularly the US, to seriously confront the effects of supporting Muslim dictatorships that enforce stability at the cost of democracy. Ultimately, this support buys friendship with no one because supporting autocrats to repress radicalism largely serves only to empower those same radicals. One cannot subscribe to the suggestion that Muslims, as a people, lack talent or suffer from some pathological antipathy to democracy. Pluralism, education, open markets, these were once Muslim values and they could be so again. But the Muslim world has yet to make its tortuous transition from arbitrary rule by dictators to the democratic rule of law. Replacing authoritarian political structures with workable, democratic institutions will require commitment and sacrifice.