After Khuldun’s previous post about Musharraf and Benazir’s apparent deal I am posting this article by Hussain Haqqani who argues that there is no deal possible, but that the illusion of a deal works to Musharraf’s advantage.
Gulf News, Oman Tribune, The Nation (Pakistan), Indian Express, Brunei Times, The Star (Bangladesh) April 11, 2007
Illusion of a Deal
By Husain Haqqani
Each time General Pervez Musharraf comes under pressure at home or abroad, his minions float rumours of an impending deal with opposition leader Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf’s emissaries fly to Dubai, meet Ms. Bhutto and then both sides deny that a deal is in the making. Ms Bhutto’s willingness to keep open channels of communication with all political forces in Pakistan is abused by the Musharraf regime to create the illusion of a deal without actually pursuing one.
Over the last few weeks, General Musharraf emerged as an increasingly ineffective military ruler facing widespread resentment at home and growing international ridicule. There is only one thing worse than a military strong running a country and that is a strongman who is clearly weak. Even Musharraf’s American armour has started to show some chinks. The U.S. media is openly questioning his ability to govern and his willingness to curb Taliban extremism. Several significant American senators wrote a letter recently to Musharraf urging him to allow the exiled national leaders, Ms Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League-N chief, Nawaz Sharif, to return and participate in the general elections.
Even the State department spokesman, who said only a few days ago that Musharraf was “acting in the best interests of Pakistan and the Pakistani people” went on to suggest that the Pakistani government “instill a sense of confidence among the people that it will adhere to the rule of law as it deals with protestors demonstrating against the ouster of the Supreme Court [chief] justice.” Implicit was the recognition that such confidence did not exist, which is why the Pakistan foreign office felt compelled to respond that foreign comments on the issue were “not welcome.”
As if to defuse the pressure, the rumour of a deal with Ms Bhutto was spread. To make the rumours plausible, the government abolished the cell that was supposedly investigating the foreign assets and offshore bank accounts of some politicians, including Ms Bhutto. A senior civil servant, identified most closely with the prosecution of cases against Ms Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was transferred and the impression was given that this was part of “confidence-building measures” preceding a Musharraf-Bhutto deal. But the substantive issues such as guarantees for a free and fair election and the restoration of civilian rule were not addressed as they have remained unaddressed before.
A deal between Ms Bhutto and General Musharraf would suit the United States and is supported by the liberal segment of Pakistan’s oligarchy. Ms Bhutto would bring popular support for a power-sharing arrangement and could provide Pakistan’s army with an exit strategy. Through a deal, Musharraf could phase himself out of power in a predictable and planned manner, avoiding uncertainties that have followed past military rulers in Pakistan’s history. What, then, prevents a deal?
General Musharraf represents a certain mindset, prevalent in the higher echelons of the Pakistani military, which makes him believe in his own invincibility. Whether it is the handling of India and Afghanistan or relations with the political opposition, Musharraf negotiates not for a deal but to buy time. Once the immediate crisis is over, he feels no need for a deal and negotiation process falls by the wayside until the next major crisis. Furthermore, Musharraf is willing to give immediate payoffs but is unwilling to bargain over the near-divine right of army chiefs to rule.
In case of negotiations with Ms Bhutto, the two sides are far apart on fundamentals. Musharraf considers changes in his (and Pakistani intelligence machinery’s) relentless pursuit of Ms Bhutto and her family as major concessions for which Ms Bhutto should be grateful. From Ms Bhutto’s point of view, the cases against her constitute persecution and an end to persecution is the precondition for talks, not the desirable outcome. She wants negotiations to focus on political and constitutional matters, such as Musharraf’s uniform and guarantees for a free and fair poll.
The cases against Ms Bhutto and her husband have lost their significance and, though still an inconvenience, do not have the same leverage they might have had a few years earlier. Fewer people around the world believe in the validity of the charges, which have largely remained unproven after almost eleven years. By way of comparison, let us examine other instances of former heads of government accused of corruption.
Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos was removed from office in 1986. The graft cases against him and his wife, Imelda, were wrapped up by 1993 – a total duration of seven years. The cases against the Marcoses involved “billions of dollars” in cash and assets in several countries and still took no more than seven years to conclude. In case of Ms Bhutto and Mr. Zardari, eleven years have passed since Ms Bhutto’s removal from power in 1996 and not a single case has been finalized.
Just as Musharraf and his military-intelligence machine use the rumours of a deal for advantage, the corruption cases too are proving to be illusory. The strategy has been to keep the sword of Damocles of allegations hanging without actually securing any convictions or final judgments. But the political value of the cases has diminished precisely because they haven’t been proven. Musharraf’s ability to blackmail Ms Bhutto on the strength of these cases is fading.
Why, under such circumstances, does Ms Bhutto not agree to a grand alliance between Pakistan’s mainstream political parties, including the Islamist Mutahhida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and use violent protests to oust Musharraf? Ms Bhutto has clearly been weighing the pros and cons of joining an agitation which runs the risk of being hijacked by the Islamists and their structured organization.
Ms. Bhutto has to take into consideration the network of Islamists within Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. After all, liberal politicians (notably Air Marshal Asghar Khan) contributed strongly to the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) campaign of 1977 only to find General Ziaul Haq ready to take over and rule for eleven years with the help of the Islamists within the PNA.
Pakistan’s drawing classes, who have never been kind to Ms Bhutto except for a short stint in 1988, continue to criticize her but her core support base among the masses has remained more or less intact. The PPP’s vote bank even in 2002 stood at 28 percent, with all the restrictions and difficulties of exile.
Pakistan’s intelligentsia recounts Benazir Bhutto’s supposed flaws and weaknesses almost on a daily basis but they forget her baptism by fire, which is her greatest strength. She has lost her father and two brothers to the Pakistani establishment, has borne the brunt of demonization and her husband has spent over 8 years in prison under trial (without conviction). Politics has affected her life far more than that of the drawing room class that hates her in its angry moments and criticizes her in the good ones.
Ms Bhutto is ready to return to Pakistan and to lead the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in a free and fair election. She is currently struggling to mobilize international support from exile for a free poll in addition to supporting the combined opposition’s mobilization of public opinion within the country. But Ms Bhutto is also clear that she wants to pave the way for the army’s withdrawal to the barracks and the emergence of a functioning democracy. She will not take hasty steps that might perpetuate Khaki shadows over Pakistan.
(Husain Haqqani is Director of Boston University’s Center for International Relations and Co-Chair of the Hudson Institute’s Project on Islam and Democracy. He is the author of the Carnegie Endowment book ‘Pakistan Between Mosque and Military’)
Nice to see that Mr. Haqqani still insists on throwing his weight behind the incorruptible and righteous Ms. Bhutto.
Baptized by fire, persecuted and exiled, but still maintaining the moral high-ground. Makes one wonder…
Lagta nahin hai ji mera ujray dayar mein
Kis ki bani hai aalam-e-na-payedar mein
Kah do in hasarataun se kahiin aur jaa basain
Itanii jagah kahan hai dil-i daaghdaar mein
Bulbul ko baghban say na sayyad say gila
Kismat main qaid likhi thi mausam-e-bahar main
Umr-i daraaz maang ke laaye the chaar din
Do aarazu mein kat gaye do intizaar mein
I agree with McDoom, although Mr. Haqqani’s articles are usually well thought-out, there is a definite and strong sense of bias towards the PPP in this particular article. (All of) His views on the PPP must be looked at with a very critical eye given his previous role as an adviser to Ms Bhutto’s government. On the other hand, given his closeness he may know more about this ‘deal’ than most of us.
Several years ago we invited HH for a lecture on campus. During personal discusssions after the talk he could not justify a number of claims he made including his role in PPP government and corruption in general. He is a careerist dedicated to himself and from the position he is in, he has to act as a liason between his new masters and prospective puppets who are going to rule Pakistan.
Asma Berlas has a better take on his opinions about military.
Whether or not the deal is real or another placibo offered to the nation by the military there is not much the nation can do about it.
Pakistan is on leash from Washington and people of Pakistan must reconcile with this fact.
As a hetrogeneous and fractured nation, there never will be unified consensus on any issue. It is rather unfortunate but as a country we bounce between occasional revulsions followed by prolonged dementia. We have missed many opportunities to better the lives of ordinary people… Now cross your fingers and brace for the worst. HH is here to deliver!
I am not surprised by Anwar’s insistence on discussing Professor Husain Haqqani, the writer, rather than the contents of his article. Maybe he has not heard the syaing, “Great minds discuss ideas, lesser minds discuss events and weak minds discuss personalities.”
It is one thing to disagree with someone’s analysis and quite another to throw labels such as “opportunist” etc.
In any case, I wonder if Anwar knows that Mr. Haqqani is now a senior Professor at a major U.S. university and a fellow at a major U.S. think tank. His articles are published in Wall Street Journal, New York times and Foreign Policy magazine, and not only about Pakistan.
These are positions many people in Pakistan would die for. Just google his name and you will find a million references to him –quite an achievement for a careerist. (By the way, what is wrong with being a careerist? or are good people only those who strive for nothing and achieve nothing?)
Most likely at this point, Benazir Bhutto (and even some folks in Musharraf’s dying government)are asking for Mr. Haqqani’s for help in America, not the other way around. Pakistanis who make a name for themselves in the U.S. are always considered larger than life back home. Remember Moin Qureshi and Shaukat Aziz?
Some of us just do not grow beyond our well and think that to everyone all that matters is some measly job in the Pakistan government.
Since we do not know what campus Anwar claims Mr. Haqqani spoke at and where he “could not justify a number of claims he made including his role in PPP government and corruption in general” we will never know what transpired. This is where Anwar, the private individual, has an advantage over Mr. Haqqani, the public figure. The private individual can say anything, without the need to be accurate and he will not be scrutinized. Prof. Haqqani is in the public eye and must answer for everything he says or does.
My experience of Prof. Haqqani is very different. I have heard him on radio, television and in person at several events. I have also heard him lecture on three different campuses, including my alma mater The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
He is very eloquent and makes his arguments in a precise manner. He is quite witty and sometimes funny. His explanations are always clear and he does not get into justifying or not justifying himself –a quality that makes him more successful internationally than in our Pakistani culture of always arguing about people.
In something McDoom (with his poetry inclination) might enjoy, here is a sher Haqqani recited (I liked it so much I noted it down) when asked about his past role in Pakistani politics. He said the view from inside the river is always different from the one from the coastal observer.
Ay Mauj-e-bala unn ko bhi zara dau chaar thaperay halkay say,
Kuchh loag abhi tak sahil say toofan ka nazara kartay hain!
Personally, I think Saad K.’s point is more likely the right one. Prof. Haqqani might know something we do not. Even if we do not agree with his analysis, it is a useful addition to the ongoing discussion.
Is’nt the purpose of discussion to learn, any way? Or do we just come here to vent our angers and frustrations and cannot do better than to kick dust in someone’s face, be it Benazir Bhutto, Musharraf or Husain Haqqani?
Thanks Wassiq,
I know the career ladder HH has been climbing and every now and then exchange emails with him as well. By the way much of our infomral discussions took place in our living room.
Hussain has been publishing, much like Ahmed Rashid and Salim Shahzad (Asia Times) and like them his target also has been the military government that none of us like. The thesis that he promotes is that at the birth of the nation there were many generals who served the Raj and as a result Pakistan inherited strong army - that continues to rule and will continue this path. By implication therefore a civilian rule is not easily possible. The original idea was that of Siddiqui who published a book long before Hussain adopted it as his own idea. And in my opinion it is actually a very strong argument.
While I always find delight in reading familiar sounding names in the press, we also have to be aware of a simple fact that dissenting voices and opinions are hardly published in the mainstream media. Even the most liberal writers do not cross certain boundaries and true dissenting opinions end up on left, socialist, or blog sites. And here lies the problem. Hussain has articulated a position that maintians a pressure on the military government to continue to do more and more… He very nicely ties his commentary to the facts and presents it in a manner that pleases the think tanks overseeing the new crusade. A careful reading of his works of last five years (This includes what appears regularly in a Pakistani daily newspaper Nation)one can see the evolution of a thought process. Needless to say that it still not a final product.
I have nothing personal against Hussain - he is a very personable guy who cracks funny jokes also, however it baffled me when he declined to express his opinion on the corruption of the governments he served. I never read a strong condemnation of those acts in his writings as well.
By the way, Hussain was also offered a position by Musharaf after the coup - but he declined…. A noble act indeed.
I agree with you and Saad, Hussain being an insider certainly knows what ordinary folks like me and you do not. All parties are pretending to be playing poker for the audience that knows the players all too well.
And so we drift back to the bane of our nation from Jinnah to Mushi: personality-driven politics!
Anwar,
Just read your two posts above and notice the contradiction.
In the first post you said, “Several years ago we invited HH for a lecture on campus.”
In your latest post you say, “I know the career ladder HH has been climbing and every now and then exchange emails with him as well. By the way much of our informal discussions took place in our living room.”
So, which is it. Things he said at the lecture or campus or allegedly in your living room?
And if you exchange e-mails with him and know him personally then maybe you should spare us the sanctimony of condemning him as a “careerist” and “opportunist” (your words, not mine).
If he is a bad guy, why have him in your living room and exchange e-mails with him?
Your summary of his core argument from his book ‘Pakistan Between Mosque and Military’ is incorrect. In fact, Prof. Haqqani says nothing of the sort you have quoted. Just google for the book and read a summary of its well researched findings. He also does not say that Pakistan “will continue this path. By implication therefore a civilian rule is not easily possible.” Mr. Haqqani always argues that civilian rule is both possible and desirable.
Also, check out www.husainhaqqani.com for his ideas. His column in ‘The Nation’ has been published for ten years, not five. In fact, now the column is syndicated and is published in many newspapers around the world as indicated at the top of this page as well.
My fundamental point, however, remains unaddressed. Why are you unable to debate ideas without running down individuals?
Also, you again try to run down Husain Haqqani (if you claim to know him, please note in all his publications he spells his name with one ‘S’)by saying, “The original idea was that of Siddiqui who published a book long before Hussain adopted it as his own idea.”
Can you kindly cite the title of Mr. Siddiqui’s book and explain why none of the many professors and journalists who reviewed the book did not find this adaption but you did?
I mean, Prof. Haqqani’s book was reviewed in Newsline by Ghazi Salahuddin, in Dawn by Zubaida Mustafa, in Friday times by Khaled Ahmed –all prominent Pakistanis. I am not even talking about American and British reviewers because you will reject international acclaim on one ground or another. None of the reviewers said the thesis was borrowed from or similar to one by Mr. Siddiqui.
Whatever personal hostility you have against a person (whether Mr. Haqqani or Benazir Bhutto) I insist that a blog should discuss ideas and not just show your personal hostility.
Last thing, even in the article cited above Mr Haqqani argues for dealing with corruption under the law and constitution. In another article he had argued that corruption should not be used as an excuse to overthrow the constitutional order. These are legitimate positions and cannot be described as not offering ” a strong condemnation of those acts.”
Discussion continued to follow from campus to our living room. I do not see any contradiction in it. Afterall he was our guest.
Now do not take me wrong I have nothing personal against him.
However there are other forces at work in very subtle ways and it takes time to get the broader picture.
To give you an example, Professor Shahid Alam, Fauzia Khan, Prof. Barlas and a number of other scholarly people from Pakistan who are well know never appear on the publications you cited simply because they objected to the ways of the empire and questioned neo-conservatives. However their work is readily available on progressive liberal publications (e.g. counterpunch.com). Take the case of Douglas Feith, architecht of Iraq invasion - after being fired from Pentagon, he is now Professor at George Town. Compare that to vey well published Norman Frinkelstein who recently was denied tenure because his three books were critical of zionists and after Alan Deshowitz launched a campaign against him. To know more about free speech and gospel of free press that embraces a particular viewpoint only checkout campuswatch.com. (may be it is .org extension) You will come across highly qualified people smeared because unlike other posterboys featured in WSJ and Times they did not play their cards to please the power.
You will also get a good insight into the marketing of the experts (writers, speakers…) by going to Banador Associates site. (Google them for web address). On their site you will find two Pakistani zionists as well so don’t be disappointed.
Once again I have nothing against Hussain - although I see his work as variations on the theme. Now that he has joined a university, he will be forced to play the publish or perish game and as a result we may see some scholarly work from him.
Now the day is passing, the sun is setting and the breeze outside is inviting me to be outdoors. Enjoy six pax tomorrow - any kosher drink. We will resume. Have a good one!
Anwar
Again, no answers to my points….and to anyone else other than yourself (who comes across as some petty person whose jealousy and pettiness makes him blind to the lack of logic in his statements) you clearly have a personal problem with the man.
Some of the recent comments require me to bring your attention to the blog’s comment policy. Not that I am saying anyone is infringing it, but things might be getting close to it.
Commen often and comment freely but keep this in mind.
I myself have no problem with the writer of the article. However, I must stress how wrong I feel his conclusions about Benazir Bhutto are. Suddenly, the deception perpertrated on a daily macro basis in Pakistan has infected writers such as Haqqani. Are we really to believe that a “baptism under fire” grants a conceited, self-aggrandizing and utterly feudal despot to be absolved of their crimes against a nation? Are we to feel sympathy for Benazir? This is an insult to the people of Pakistan. Judas went through a baptism of fire and betrayal- does he get forgiven by many Christians?
Benazir or Musharraf, there is no difference really. Exchanging an Oliver for a Paladin is hardly cause for optimism. I am immediately, and unhappily, reminded that this sort of scenario was envisaged even before Pakistan was born, courtesy or Mr. Orwell:
“No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
I agree with Wasiq that we should be discussing ideas and not personalities.
I have met Prof Haqqani, read his book and articles and actually find him very knowledgeable.
I accept Freddie’s point that Bhutto’s baptism by fire does not absolve her of any crimes.
But there are only two ways of dealing with a crime: Punish it in a court of law or let public opinion decide.
Efforts to punish Ms Bhutto in courts of law have failed and ten years have gone by.
Now there will be an opportunity to address her “crimes” in the court of public opinion at election time.
I understand the sentiment of Freddie and others who are convinced that Bhutto and Zardari are criminals. But what matters is the legal and constitutional position.
Freddie and others who believe she committed crimes should do their best to make sure she does not win the next election.
Benazir Bhutto’s supporters have the right to try and persuade people she should be given another chance.
That is not deception, just a political argument that is normal in democracies.
Musharraf and the massive NAB failed to convict Bhutto or Zardari in ten years. That leaves the matter of any crimes committed by them unresolved.
I find it so incredibly sad that everywhere I go on the web I find Pakistanis attacking each other as opposed to discussing ideas/ Can we please try to overcome this. It is the old sad joke of people in hell in the pit instead of admiring people who work hard and succeed spend all their time pulling others down into the pit with them instead of trying to get out themselves. Such a waste of energy and so sad for our country. zjan
PS Any form of democracy is a step in the right direction………..
It is funny how Wasiq started off saying that one should attack the content of the article and not the writer and then goes onto lodge the only attack on this entire comments chain. I admire Anwar’s tolerance with regards to this.
Just to quote the comment:
‘Anwar
Again, no answers to my points….and to anyone else other than yourself (who comes across as some petty person whose jealousy and pettiness makes him blind to the lack of logic in his statements) you clearly have a personal problem with the man.’
However, looking at it from Wasiq’s point of view he definitely has a great amount of admiration for HH seeing from his comments which are rejigged and regurgitated versions of HH’s articles and comments. Good on you Wasiq! You’re a true fan.
Now, I don’t think I am in a position to say whether there is a deal or not. But if there is a deal it would be utterly shocking and disappointing.
My questions is whether this deal is possible? Most probably not. Why? Because there is no trust between the parties and there seems to be no guarantor of such a deal on the horizon, not even the Ameicans.
Hi,
I am a fellow Pakistani and I have been avidly following this blog for a long time …
I agree with Qaiser that Wasiq claims a moral high ground and says that one should not make personal attacks and then makes them himself.
I further agree with Qaiser that Wasiq is fighting a losing battle if he wants us to ‘forgive and forget’ what Bhutto, Haqqani and others like them have done to our democracy.
I also think that the establishment has been blamed too much - the corrupt politicians are more at fault. The army has always defended us from our enemies across the border who want to break us up.
I have never been on this blog before but I am really impressed with quality of interaction here.
Both Anwar and Wasiq are making some valid points. However, we cannot separate a writer from his/her past. Mr. Hussain Haqqani, despite being an extremely intelligent person has lots of blemishes and they cannot or should not be ignored. I must admit that I don’t read his articles regularly or have followed his career in earnest as some here appear to have done.
Anwar has correctly pointed out that many things that HH writes about such as the army and mullah nexus in Pakistan are really old news. This holy alliance of the not-so-holy of the Pakistan politics developed during the Ayub regime and matured into a full alliance during the East Pakistan crisis. The situation in Afghanistan in the late70s and the 80s has made both the army and the mullah inseparable.
Many politicians, trade union leaders and lots of intellectuals in Pakistan- we don’t hear any thing about them in the main stream media of Pakistan- have been writing and lecturing to the people who would listen about how these two have wrecked any chance of democracy or even a civilian rule in Pakistan.
If posters on this blog have access to and can read Sindhi and Baloch political writers or even the main stream Sindh newspapers like DailyKawish.com or Ibrat.com, they will find that almost 100% of intellectuals in both these provinces have long been talking about this alliance and its negative impact on Pakistani politics. The reason every attempt is made by the army to sideline the two important provinces is the political awareness in these two provinces.
One thing we should accept as a fact that neither Ms. Benazir nor Mr. Nawaz Sharif are democrats. They are not looking to turn Pakistan into a democratic state. They have always been looking to share power with the army. Being a realist, they understand that without a compromise with the army they can never get in to power. So in the end their whole game is to share power with the army. Though often they make feeble attempts to be the dominant party in that power sharing.
Right now, Ms. Benazir has lots of support in the US Democrat majority congress. She also has support in the US state department. She is working her way through to build a pressure to go back to Pakistan and hopefully become a dominant partner with the army in the new civilian set up. We need to read Mr. HH’s articles and posts with that background in mind and that will explain as to where he is coming from.
Apologies for this long post but I would like to make one more point and leave it open for discussion here:
As I said, both Ms. Benazir and Mr. Sharif, are not democrat but they have the vote power in Pakistan to turn that country in to at least a civilian ruled state with some respect for constitution though I am not sure how committed they are to the constitution themselves.
With Ms. Benazir or Mr. Sharif, we hope to at least see an active civilian rule in the government process more than what we see now. They are not the answer to our hopes to see Pakistan a democratic State but they do offer a chance to strengthen the confidence in now changed circumstance. Hopefully, their successors would be civilians and perhaps that will lead Pakistan into a true democratic and constitutional state.
We have to trade civilian corruption over the military corruption but at least the civilian rules would empower the people a little more than the current situation.
It may not be a whole lot but it is something that we should help to usher in Pakistan. I am for accepting civilian rule that will perhaps lead to democracy in Pakistan over the army rule which would eventually lead to some major fractions in the Pakistani society and the state.
Thanks.
Greetings everyone. I felt compelled to write the following lines as many readers do not have the luxury of time to dig into exploring the subtleties I mentioned in my earlier post.
Scholars/authors put their “thoughts” on the paper when they write. Behind every thought there is an impulse shaped by the interactions and experiences of a scholar. In other words history of author plays an important role in how he/she composes and presents thoughts. Therefore, for example, when Alexander Cockburn critiques Christopher Hitchen’s work or when Tariq Ali reviews Fukayama’s theory of clash of civilizations they have to include the history of authors in drawing inferences without any professional prejudices. Serving as a reviewer for several journals I too weigh in the background of authors and to claim that I am (or for that matter any objective reviewer) is jealous of (e.g. Hussain) is a charge adnauseam.
I came across an interesting comment about Saddam by a Middle East analyst who wrote; “He could not differentiate between appeasement and entrapment!” This was in reference to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. – Who was Saddam? And what about Shah, Marcos, Suharto, Zia, Mubarak, Musharaf and all the micro and macro kings of the Gulf? They were/are all assets to serve the empire. Some assets are cultivated and some come into existence and are facilitated to serve only one purpose. Some are held in the wings waiting for opportune time – this includes self-exiled leaders, religious thugs, and sheltered criminals, to be unleashed later.
Colonialism as such never ended. Independence of several countries after the Second World War was not just because of the fatigue but in fact a realization by the colonial powers that demography will prove very expensive and eventually route them out. Divide and rule was not the only viable option. To control large masses of population, control of local leader was therefore important – anyone who could do the dirty job. And here lies human asset building doctrine the results of which we have all witnessed in several third world countries.
But to select a proxy who could become a disposable leader also require knowledge of population such as trends, thinking, marketability, and future projections of human potential as well as natural resources. It is like data mining. All great powers keep an eye on friends and foes alike for maintaining power and sphere of influence for economic as well as military purposes.
Data is acquired in a variety of ways. In rural areas programs such as Peace Corps funded by the State Department serve this purpose. In urban areas statistics are obtained directly from government and non-government sources that include social scientists, news papers, universities etc. And then there is another very direct method i.e. scholarly exchange through think tanks and “non-profit” foundations such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace or American Enterprise Institute etc., where international scholars and leaders are hosted for a fixed period of time with renewable yearly contracts. Minutes of the weekly meetings, publications of articles by the guests, and annual reports become sought after data that other agencies analyze or hire sub-contractors such as the Rand Corporation to analyze. These places also serve as incubators for the future assets!
Publications from these organizations also publicize a particular point of view or discredit potential intellectual threat.
Having served in the government as an insider and later as an ambassador, Haqqani was a pretty good choice by Carnegie Foundation. Former Army Chief Jehangir Karamat is in the US through a similar program. He has a good working knowledge of the armed forces…..
I am not implying that everyone passing through such programs is automatically brainwashed to betray the motherland. But for a clan based society such as Pakistan where individuals have stronger influence instead of ideas, influence peddling becomes a viable tool for winning the hearts and minds of the masses.
There are indeed some positive outcomes as well – who wouldn’t want Starbuck coffee in Islamabad? I will be making visit to the coffee shop every hour – with each sip I will be draining capital from local economy and someone in Seattle will be counting my money - and that is what the empire wants, that is what the game is all about. It is a dance of pawns – the only choice they have is either join the band or stay on the floor! But for those smart intellectuals and experts who jump out to join the band, they can unfortunately only play the music written for them. For some that is a price worth paying!
So when there is another coup or change of leadership in Pakistan, brace for seeing familiar faces obliged to pay the dues of Jeffersonian hospitality!
Anwar,
If it is all a chess game in which anyone who matters in Pakistan is a pawn then what do you propose we all do?
Just sit and blog away and be cynical?
Pakistani Peoples are the worlds foolest peoples in the world. They have right to submit their votes and elect their representative and send them to assemblies while they are running towards one man or woman like they will solve and make their wishes come true. Stupid Peoples, need stupid leaders like Benazir And Nawaz who dont know how to handle any thing just got directions from west and follow.