International

Pressure mounts in U.K. for tougher stand against Musharraf

London: The debate in Britain over the current turmoil in Pakistan has been dominated by questions about what commentators have termed as British and American “impotence” in the wake of their favourite dictator’s second “coup” in eight years.

For the first time since Britain, imitating the Bush administration, threw its weight behind President Pervez Musharraf after the 9/11 attacks, doubts are being raised about a strategy which has focussed solely on what serves Western interests rather than what is good for Pakistan and its people.

“Musharraf’s coup — for that is what it is — has, indeed, exposed the flimsy nature of the West’s calculations in Pakistan, and the error of trying to shoehorn the general into acting as America’s regional policeman,” The Independent said.

While there is much hand-wringing in the government with the Foreign Office blowing hot and cold, depending on how the wind is blowing in Washington, critics are pressing for a tougher stand. Even one-time Musharraf supporters, who once hailed him as a liberal moderniser, have been jolted by images of brutal repression of peaceful lawyers and human rights campaigners coming out of Pakistan.

There are fears that by continuing to prop up an unpopular leader, the West could very well lose Pakistan as an ally and end up fuelling the already deep-seated anti-West sentiment in that country.

As The Daily Telegraph pointed out, British support for Gen. Musharraf at a time when his own people are against him may turn out to be “self-defeating.” “By lining up with a dictator, we give his opponents every reason to resent us, and vindicate the constant anti-Western plaint of ‘double standards’,” it said questioning the popular view in the Foreign Office that Gen. Musharraf is the “only alternative to the fundamentalists.”

In a strongly-worded editorial headed “Musharraf does not deserve our support,” it said: “If … we continue to support Musharraf on the basis that he is the only alternative to the fundamentalists, we will eventually make that ludicrous contention come true. Once again, our Foreign Office, like the U.S. State Department, is over-emphasising its investment in a regime that just happens to be there.”

Official British reaction has closely mirrored the American line, demonstrating how closely British foreign policy remains tied to America even in the supposedly less slavishly pro-U.S., post-Blair era. After a cautious response — reflecting the view in Washington — there were, briefly, signs of a hardening of British attitude amid talk of a review of development aid to Pakistan.

This, after the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated that America was “going to have to review the situation with [regard to] aid.” But the moment Americans changed their mind Britain also dropped the idea prompting criticism that London was toeing the American position.

With the sole exception of The Times, the British media have been scathing in their condemnation of the self-inflicted (and self-serving) helplessness that these two countries have demonstrated in dealing with Gen. Musharraf. Having put all their eggs in the Musharraf basket in a desperate bid to buy his support for their “war” on terror, they are stuck with him. And Gen. Musharraf knows this, The Guardian noted.

“Gen. Musharraf has called Washington and London’s bluff, knowing they have no option but to back him. In launching what is, in effect, his second military coup in eight years, the general has exposed the impotence of the U.S. and Britain to control a key ally with nuclear weapons … The general is showing his iron fist, and there is little his Western backers can do about it,” it said.

Even The Times, which believes that, for all his faults, Gen. Musharraf remains the “best placed” to deliver on the West’s objectives in the region, wants more pressure to be brought on him to “return to the rule of democracy and law” swiftly.

Observers say that, in one stroke, Gen. Musharraf has exposed the hollowness of British and American “commitment” to democracy. Pro-democracy forces in Pakistan are widely seen to have been badly let down by them in a cynical pursuit of their own interests.

“We are told that for all the havoc it caused, the Iraq invasion was ‘worth it’ because it removed a dictator and paved the way for democracy but in Pakistan they are propping up a dictator instead of standing up for those who are fighting for democracy,” a critic said, recalling the role played by the West in engineering the so-called ‘Orange’, ‘Rose’ and ‘Tulip’ revolutions in former Soviet republics to topple anti-Western leaders in the name of bringing democracy.

There is a strong theory that Americans “greenlighted” Gen. Musharraf’s emergency plans, as Tariq Ali, the left-wing commentator, wrote quoting a respected Pakistani journalist. The extent of British complicity is not known. Pakistani officials have claimed that initially both U.K. and the U.S. were opposed to the idea but relented after Gen. Musharraf assured them that he would shed his uniform and hold elections as scheduled in January. The fact remains that Gen. Musharraf got away with it because Britain and America allowed him to do so. Analysts have warned that if Pakistan descends into further chaos, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President George W. Bush will have a great deal to answer for.

Jemima Khan has become an unlikely star in her former husband Imran Khan’s campaign against Gen. Musharraf — writing articles and disseminating messages from him. Both share a dislike for the Pakistan People’s Party leader Benazir Bhutto whom Ms. Khan has described as “totally bogus” and a “kleptocrat in a Hermes headscarf.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu