Assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, increased violent activities of the radical Islamists along the Pakistan-Afghan border, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal potentially at risk along with other domestic developments are said to have pushed Pakistan on the brink of disaster, particularly if the present situation is allowed to further deteriorate. These developments do take a dispassionate observer further away from the normalcy that one would like to see returned to Pakistan. The distance from normalcy means that the war on terror is hampered and the kind of political transition that one would like to see towards a moderate regime becomes even more difficult.
Benaizr’s Assassination.
The tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto has cast a dark shadow across Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with a long history of militarism and militancy. Despite the posthumous accolades, Mrs. Bhutto was a controversial figure. She opted to live outside of Pakistan to avoid her numerous criminal charges of corruption and had a poor track record of delivering on her populist promises during her two prematurely aborted tenures as prime minister. Nevertheless, Mrs. Bhutto’s party – Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) – is the only one with national appeal.
Her killing has delivered Pervez Musharraf’s government yet another perilous blow. While Mrs. Bhutto was unlikely to prevail in the January 2008 elections, her participation would have provided much-needed credibility to the vote and would have conferred a degree of legitimacy to Musharraf’s reconstituted presidency and his numerous constitutional amendments.
Many in Pakistan hold Musharraf’s regime accountable. In view of mounting vocal demands for Musharraf’s immediate departure, it seemed extremely difficult for him to shake the pale of illegitimacy that taints his government. The inability of the nation’s security forces to keep Mrs. Bhutto safe in Rawalpindi has raised myriad questions about basic security in the country.
The likelihood of Mrs. Bhutto’s killing encouraging Washington and London to redouble their commitment to Musharraf and the army as the sole source of security, silencing the growing critics who have come to see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution, cannot be ruled out.
To preclude the appearance of subordinating democracy to security objectives and to bolster a weakened Musharraf, the Bush administration initially preferred that the scheduled elections would go forward despite the vocal Pakistani opposition to this plan. Many Pakistanis did not believe free and fair elections were possible in January — especially when Mrs. Bhutto’s party remained in disarray without a clear successor. These two policies ultimately entailed the potential of increasing long-term instability.
Mrs. Bhutto’s greatest asset was her recent rhetoric condemning militancy in Pakistan and her vows to fight it — though it is doubtful she would have been able to make good on those promises if elected. With her demise, it is doubtful that Pakistanis will embrace the war on terror as their own or continue to believe Pakistan is fighting a war on behalf of Washington.
Many Pakistanis nurse the apprehension that their country’s slip into violence has been caused by Musharraf’s alliance with Washington. Under these circumstances, it will be difficult for Musharraf to convince his polity that Pakistan is fighting for its future — not his.
According to some observers, in the post-Benazir period, Pakistan’s survival depends on the outcome of a struggle between the army and Bhutto’s PPP party, now headed by her 19-year-old son Bilawal. The protagonists are mismatched and the odds are that Pakistan will not make it.
For all its shortcomings, the PPP is still Pakistan’s true national institution. Apart from commanding overwhelming support in the province of Sindh, the PPP enjoys substantial support in Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Like many South Asian political parties, it is a family affair, but it has an enduring platform: opposition to military rule.
Pakistan’s army has long defined itself as the guardian of the nation, and successive generals have used this role as their pretext to grab and stick to power. However, the army is not a national institution. Historically, the Punjab has produced 90% of the officer corps while the Sindh, with 25% of Pakistan’s population, is essentially unrepresented. Sindhis tend to see army rule as equivalent to Punjabi rule. The Bhutto killing sparked widespread attacks on federal property in Sindh and could galvanize separatist sentiment in the province.
The PPP’s decision to make Bilawal Bhutto chairman is not just about dynastic succession or garnering a sympathy vote. It is also an effort to save the Pakistani federation, and whether it will work or not is any body’s guess.
Apart from being an extraordinarily gifted politician, Benazir was a brilliant strategist who focused not only on finding a way back to power for a third time but also on constructing a moderate coalition – including power-sharing with Pervez Musharraf – that could defeat extremism, make peace with India and thus create conditions that would get the army out of politics for good. Benazir honed her tactical skills and strategic thinking over nearly three decades at the helm of the PPP and it is unrealistic to think that her son – by all accounts a bright, studious and forthright young man – could do the same, even with the help of family and Benazir’s political associates. But the larger problem is the Pakistani military.
Increase in Terrorists Activities
According to Bruce Riedel, a former US defense and intelligence official, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was almost certainly the work of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s Pakistani allies. He says, “Their objective is to destabilize the Pakistani state, to break up the secular political parties, to break up the army so that Pakistan becomes a politically failing state in which the Islamists in time can come to power much as they have in other failing states.”
Undoubtedly, the Musharraf government had promised to deliver stability and democracy but the tragic events that ensued in the post-Benazir period indicate that it has failed to do both. Instead of stability there have occurred acts of terror and instead of democracy, there prevails dictatorship and chaos. Many experts feel that the only way that Pakistan could be able to fight terrorism effectively was to have a legitimate, democratically-elected, secular government that would rally the Pakistani people to engage al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist movements. In view of the army dictatorship’s failure to do so, the option of the democratic movement to move forward can be explored.
The magnitude of terrorist violence gaining salience can be gauged from the fact that Pakistan witnessed a ten-fold increase in suicide bombings on security personnel in 2007 as compared to the past year, with hundreds of personnel losing their lives in the attacks. There occurred 56 suicide attacks in 2007 that resulted in the death of 419 law enforcement personnel and injured 217 civilians.
During 2006, only six such incidents were reported in which 46 law enforcement personnel and 91 civilians were killed. The past year also witnessed a 100 per cent increase in attacks on law enforcement personnel. A report published in Pakistani media focused on attacks on security personnel. In 465 attacks on security personnel across Pakistan, 234 personnel and 262 civilians were killed.
In comparison, 224 attacks targeted law enforcement personnel in 2006, resulting in the death of 82 personnel and 159 civilians. The year 2007 also witnessed over 100 per cent increase in bomb blasts, with 42 security personnel and 164 civilians losing their lives in 477 blasts.
This was in comparison to the killing of nine security personnel and 110 civilians in 2006. The past year also topped in total causalities –2,116 people, including 558 security personnel, were killed and 3,962 injured in 1,825 attacks. This was in comparison to 1,482 attacks in 2006 in which 967 people, including 263 security personnel, were killed and 1,895 injured.
The year 2006 saw a decrease in three different categories of terrorism, missile or rocket attacks, improvised explosive device explosions and mine blasts. Only 417 incidents of missile or rocket attacks occurred in 2007, as compared to 528 incidents in 2006.
Nuclear Arsenal at Risk
Pakistan is the sole Islamic state with nuclear weapons. It is also one where the atomic arsenal – comprising, according to experts, 60-65 warheads – is controlled almost exclusively by an increasingly Islamised military that remains the country’s most powerful institution.
The arsenal’s location remains a closely guarded secret but Western intelligence sources believe the weapons are secreted in Islamabad’s proximity, with the warheads and delivery systems separated. The lax security mechanism that resulted into Benazir’s assassination and the chaos that followed once more raises worrying questions about the continuing security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Islamabad’s record in nuclear proliferation too is, at best, dubious. Its top atomic scientist Abdul Qader Khan was exposed in 2004 as the head of an international black market operation in nuclear technology working reportedly in collusion with the military, leaking lethal secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea in exchange for large sums of money and long range missile designs.
Pakistani nuclear scientists are even believed to have travelled to Afghanistan to meet with the Al Qaeda leadership when the Taliban controlled Kabul before being ousted by the US-led coalition in 2001.
India and Western analysts caution that radicalized elements within Pakistan’s powerful military and security establishment could gain access to the country’s nuclear weapons if the debilitating war of attrition against the jihadis continued. They cite the instance of a large number of Pakistani soldiers, including officers, opting to surrender to militants rather than fight them in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and in Swat north of Islamabad, as an instance of the military’s burgeoning radicalization.
Analysts said these were growing signs of fraying loyalties in the Pakistani army with its normally robust command and control system appearing wobbly and underlying the danger to its cohesiveness. According to one opinion, “A situation threatening the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and collapse of its command and control could only be brought about by subversion from within the military establishment. Were this to happen it would signify the Islamists’ penetration of the last bastion of credible power in Pakistan, a situation that frightens the world.”
In early December 2007, President Pervez Musharraf assumed formal control of the National Command Authority (NCA) that he established in 2000 to manage the country’s nuclear weapons, two years after Pakistan detonated six atomic devices. The NCA includes the associated Employment Control Committee (EEC), the Development Control Committee (DCC) and the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), all overseen by a select group of officials, dominated by the military.
Pakistan’s nuclear forces are placed under the strategic commands of each service. At present, the Army Strategic Forces Command (ASFC) has a confirmed existence and exercises operational control over the Missile Group North and the Missile Group South. According to Harsh Pant, a nuclear analyst at Kings College in London, “But it would take little time for the (nuclear) command and control network to collapse if Pakistan slid toward anarchy. Should that happen, sympathizers of radical Islamists within the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies could very possibly assist militant groups in acquiring the wherewithal of a nuclear weapon.”
In November 2007, Pakistan confirmed that the US was helping ensure the security of its nuclear weapons, but declined to elaborate. It reiterated that the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets was ‘foolproof’ and advised against creating irresponsible alarm. In an official statement, Pakistan declared that it was capable of defending its nuclear interests and cautioned those “contemplating misadventures.”
US media reports, meanwhile, declared that Washington had spent $100 million in helping secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons against theft and accidents, a claim Islamabad denied. Some Western experts believe that the US has fitted Pakistan’s nuclear warheads with permissive action links, or security devices that control their activation, soon after aligning with Islamabad in the war against terror after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Pakistan refutes that claim too.
Is Election the Answer?
Elections that were scheduled to be held in early January 2008 were postponed as a sequel to the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto and were rescheduled for 18 February 2008. It is widely believed that holding of the elections is necessary to form a government that will steer the country out of the prevailing crises. Top brass of the PPP feels that Pakistan’s future is dependent on democracy, and that antisocial elements are out to sabotage the election process through violence.
President Pervez Musharraf said on 14 January 2008 that he had issued orders to security forces to shoot any person who tries to disrupt Pakistan’s upcoming general election and asserted that the polls would be free, fair transparent and peaceful. While addressing a business function in Karachi, President said: “The elections are to be held on February 18. The (Pakistan) Rangers and army will be deployed for this. If any individual does anything, I have told the Rangers and army ‘We will shoot anyone who tries to do anything of this sort’.”
President Musharraf further stated: “The elections are to be held and a new government is to be formed. We have said the elections will be free, fair and transparent. To this, I have added one more word – peaceful. Let me assure you that the elections will be peaceful.” He has repeatedly said in the past few weeks that he would not allow any protests or agitations during the February 18 parliamentary polls.
Viewed in a broad spectrum, elections alone are not the panacea for the ills afflicting the Pak society. If a viable coalition of PPP and other parties fails to emerge in order to form a stable government, military leadership under Musharraf will get a free hand to run the affairs according to their whims and fancies. Political leaders are equally ambitious to have the cake as well as to eat it too. However, the outcome of elections will break the political stalemate and in case a strong coalition emerges at the helm of affairs, it will be a happy augury for peace and stability of Pakistan.
Musharraf’s Dilemma
Under the present critical juncture, President Musharraf is confronted with the dilemma whether to dance to the tune of Western countries or heed the domestic cries for restoration of democracy and ensure his exit. Concurrently, he is also faced with unrelenting criticism from Pakistan’s public and political leaders amid unsubstantiated suspicion that his intelligence services were involved in the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto. At the same time, he is also now facing unprecedented international pressure to curtail violence and ensure timely free and fair poll.
It is worth mentioning here that before returning to Pakistan in October 2007, Miss Bhutto had informed David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, and senior US officials that there was a plot against her life that involved key intelligence officials in the Musharraf regime. Her warnings – given to the two governments that have been most forward in their support for Musharraf – make it much more difficult for London and Washington to continue their unquestioned support for the president, who has been the key to tackling al-Qa’eda and the Taliban.
Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, has urged the Bush administration to address “troubling questions” the murder raises “before any additional US aid is sent to the Musharraf government”.
The US presidential contender Hillary Clinton has also accused Pakistan’s military of possible involvement in Miss Bhutto’s murder. Speaking in Iowa on Saturday, she said that, while some claim the murder was carried out by al-Qa’eda, “others are saying it looked like it was an inside job”.
Despite its strong denials that it would seek international help, the Pakistani government is now exploring the possibility of asking for assistance from the FBI and other Western agencies. There is also now a clamour for a UN Security Council-led investigation such as the one carried out for Rafik Hariri, the assassinated Lebanese prime minister. Reports indicate that Scotland Yard of UK has already undertaken the task of probing the assassination of Ms Benazir.
If the international community continues to move away from Musharraf, it will not only weaken his position among the public, but also within the military, which has supported him because he has continued to attract massive assistance from the US – more than $1 billion (£500 million) a year, 80 per cent of which is spent on weapons.
There is already widespread public hatred for Musharraf and the army due to the jailing of thousands of democracy activists, lawyers and judges in November last year. The army has become increasingly sensitive to public criticism, but as long as international support continued for Musharraf, the army has remained loyal. Now that the mood in Western capitals is shifting, the army is also likely to begin to see Musharraf as a liability.
Most experts predict another major crisis after the elections. If the legitimacy of the polls should be questioned and the opposition parties refuse to accept the results, army commanders may well be persuaded that Musharraf has outstayed his welcome.
US Options
Prior to the assassination Benazir Bhutto, the United States had hoped for a deal between Bhutto and Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, expecting that her return to power would lend legitimacy to Musharraf’s increasingly unpopular government. That plan died with Bhutto, though President Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, both have expressed support for a decision by Pakistan to go ahead with parliamentary elections on 18 February this year.
According to Daniel Markey, options for Washington are limited. He warns if major political parties boycott the upcoming parliamentary elections, “the United States will need to consider options for working with the army and civilian political leaders to manage the removal of President Musharraf.”
Viewed in a broad perspective, Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party, like most political parties in the country, was anchored by her personally rather than a particular ideology. Pakistan’s democratic institutions lack roots, and it is unclear how deeply Bhutto’s sympathy for the United States runs in the second tier of PPP leadership or in other parties. Recently, the New York Times reported that U.S. embassy officials in Islamabad had reached out to members of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s party, and this suggests Washington is hard-pressed for trustworthy partners in Pakistan. U.S. policymakers have been suspicious of Sharif due to his alleged ties to Islamists.
The U.S. Congress, too, has questioned the effectiveness of nearly $10 billion in aid to Musharraf in the war against terrorism. Recently, it imposed new restrictions on U.S. assistance to Pakistan. According to Manjeet Kripalani, BusinessWeek’s Bombay bureau chief, U.S. influence in the country is likely to diminish because Bush’s continued focus on extremists in Pakistan, rather than on reform of the Pakistani military, is likely to create more muddled policy.
U.S. officials had raised serious questions in recent days about continuing the flow of aid to Pakistan – $ 10 billion since 2001 — and whether Musharraf is committed or able to follow through on his promises to address Pakistan’s problems with Islamist extremists. Compounding the problem has been American incompetence. As in Iraq, billions of dollars in aid have been frittered away through incompetence and carelessness, leaving the Pakistani army just as unwilling and unable to take on the Taliban’s sanctuaries. Worse, there is no remedial plan on the horizon. Under American tutelage, the military has gotten fatter and more ham-fisted.
The Bush Administration’s policy with respect to Pakistan, in short, is a train wreck. As usual, the White House has assumed that military force — here deployed by a vassal state — could clamp down on terrorism. As usual, it has utterly failed to understand complex relations, here the links between ISI and Al Qaeda going back to the Afghan war, and the way in which corruption and a drift to purely “faith-based” politics push more and more people toward the violently eschatological ideology.
Washington’s Pakistan policy is worse than a shambles; its failures radiate out. It is fostering the erosion of what limited success there was in Afghanistan. It is feeding terrorist propaganda that claims America sustains tyrants. And it is impeding the long-term goal of a Pakistan that cannot serve as a terrorist safe haven or a training ground for recruits from the West.
India’s Interests
When President Musharraf promulgated internal emergency recently in Pakistan, India described it as an ‘internal’ affair of Pakistan and hoped for a speedy restoration of the democratic process in the country. India’s stand vis-à-vis current fragile situation obtaining in Pakistan has been explained by India’s Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee in an interview with the CNN-IBN television on 13 January 2008 whereby he stated that a stable and peaceful Pakistan was in India’s interest. He further stated: “There is a problem no doubt, but… I am quite confident of the resilience of the system and the people of Pakistan; I do hope that they will overcome this crisis. And, after all, we shall have to keep in mind that in different phases there have been different types of problems in the history of Pakistan. But somehow or other the people of Pakistan, [the] systems there… they have managed the situation. And let us hope so, because in our own interest we want a stable, peaceful, prosperous Pakistan, as it is an important neighbour of ours. And in our neighbourhood we would like to have peace, stability and development.”
He minced no words in stating that instability in Pakistan would have an adverse impact on India as well as other neighbours of Pakistan. He expressed the hope that Pakistan would be able to address the problems in the way it deems best and that stability would be restored soon there.
In reply to a question whether India viewed Musharraf as part of the problem or saw him as part of the solution, Indian Foreign Minister said: “First of all, we are interested in peace, stability, and [the] development of Pakistan. And as I mentioned in response to another question, we ought to deal with whoever is in office in Pakistan. Therefore we do not make any value judgment…”
Future Prospects
Pakistan’s strategic location makes it an important country impacting on the developments in South and Central Asia. Being the only Islamic nuclear power, Pakistan shoulders greater responsibility to see that nuclear weapons are in safe hands and don’t fall into wrong hands. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the ensuing violence do not make Pakistan fragile because the society and its people love their nation and know how to overcome such mishaps and maintain internal stability.
At this critical juncture it is not the question of as to who will rule over Pakistan but the worrying question is about Pakistan’s stability, regional security and dealing with the terrorists with a stern hand. Whosoever occupies the seat of power in Islamabad after 18 February poll, the new dispensation should enjoy the domestic consensus and full support of neighbours and great powers, particularly the United States.
Pakistan is an important and strategic ally in the fight against terror. The US views it as a bastion of American policies in the Middle East. It thus becomes imperative to the US and the GCC states that Pakistan improves its security and stability. Any bloody, tumultuous upheaval will have far-reaching consequences; however, no resolution is possible unless the Pakistanis themselves choose to seek it.
To fend off any pessimistic view of the future of their country, the people of Pakistan should rise as one entity and fight the forces of darkness. Nawaz Sharif, the Islamic parties and the PPP should get their heads together and focus on a strategy — not to create a psyche of fear and level accusations against President Musharraf, but to forge a national unity government that will steer the country out of this bloody mess.
by Dr. Arvind Kumar
