asianaffairs

April 2009

Security implications

The financial strain will create some serious security problems for corporations and governments the world over.

Editorial

Democracy, Zardari sensible options

The number of column inches in major world newspapers devoted to the affairs of Pakistan, more than say to Germany, Japan or even, arguably, China, is an indication of Islamabad's importance on the globe's political radar screens. The reason is all too obvious and has been so for many years. To start with there is its strategic location, close to major oil fields and emerging world powers. Pakistan is also a nuclear power and host to any number of Islamic extremist groups, including Al Qaeda and its allies, which gives it the ability to inflict major damage in its immediate neighbourhood and in the wider world.

Islamic extremists have been blamed for recent attacks on the Marriot hotel in Islamabad, the slaughter in Mumbai and the most recent and shocking attack on innocent members of the Sri Lankan cricket team visiting Lahore to participate in a sporting event that should have been an occasion for joyful celebration. Instead it turned into a tragedy that left Pakistanis, whether cricket lovers or not, shocked, bewildered and concerned about what lies ahead. If ever there was a moment when ordinary Pakistanis legitimately feared for themselves and their country, it was generated by the attack on the visiting cricketers.

Some Pakistanis and their loyal supporters say all their problems stem from the difficult circumstances of the country's birth, including unsolved political problems with neighbouring India and the way it has been used and abused by powerful patrons in Washington. There is no doubt that many of the jihadi groups currently operating out of Pakistan have their roots in the covert assistance that the U.S. provided to fight against the invading forces in Afghanistan of the then Soviet Union. The subsequent Soviet withdrawal and the collapse of communist regimes in Moscow and Eastern Europe must have been a time of sweet triumph for the shining knights who masterminded the end of the Cold War from behind their desks in Washington. But that victory represented a double-edged sword. Indeed if so many Pakistan-based jihadi groups have now spun out of control, the U.S. cannot and should not shirk its share of the blame for the mess that has been created. Nor, as realists point out, can Pakistanis themselves avoid responsibility for the desecration of their country and its institutions. Vain glorious military chiefs, who variously see themselves as modern day equivalents of Tamerlane or Alexander, have been matched over the years by greedy, self-serving civilian politicians who care more for their own pockets than for their country.

As Islamabad sinks ever deeper into crisis, it is no wonder that Pakistan's different provinces have started to ask whether it would be better for them to go it alone rather remain part of the federation. During the last election it was in Benazir Bhutto's home province of Sindh where slogans were raised Pakistan nakhappan (We don't want Pakistan). More recently there has been a spate of backroom speculation, for example, that Balochis are exploring the prospects of one day becoming part of a new Central Asian state incorporating parts of Afghanistan and Pakistani-held Kashmir. These and other similar stories are legitimate subjects for political analysis, but for the outside world they spell disaster. Surely, it must be better to preserve a united Pakistan, rather than a fragmented jigsaw that hosts not one but many versions of Al Qaeda?

Against the backdrop of deteriorating daily security, those who still believe in preserving a united Pakistan must ask themselves what political system is best for the future of the country. The 61 year old history of Pakistan suggests that both military and civilian rulers have proved remarkably inept. In the short and immediate term it is always tempting to see the army as the sure-fire solution to Pakistan's problems. But common sense suggests that democratic rule, which potentially gives every Pakistani citizen a stake in their country's future, is by far the healthier of the two options. Asif Ali Zardari may have his limitations, not least his past record of alleged corruption, but he won the last election fair and square and for the time being he represents the best of all available options. Pakistanis and their foreign friends need to cross their fingers and hope that a Zardari who respects fundamental democratic principles is able to pave the way for his country's longer lasting prosperity, stability and security. What works for Pakistan by way of enhancing its stability will be also good for the rest of the international community.

top

April 2009

Financial crisis

Security implications
Fred Burton and
Scott Stewart

Pakistan

Intolerance running riot
Pervez Hoodbhoy

Justice Chaudhary

Great expectations
Rahimullah Yusufzai

Debate in House of Lords

Can democracy tackle terrorism?
David Watts

Afghan review

Testing times ahead
David Watts