July 7, 2003

PAKISTAN: AMERICA'S MUSLIM WEATHERVANE?

By Tom Plate

Worried about a South Asian nuclear war, or worldwide anti-Americanism?

© 2003 Asia Pacific Media Network

LOS ANGELES -- One thing Americans can’t say of troubled but yet again indispensable Pakistan: that it has been but a fair-weather friend. In truth, it’s the other way around. We insist on Pakistan’s friendship when -- and only when -- the geopolitical weather turns foul.

And now it’s Pakistan time again.

Weather reports: Recall that Ronald Reagan played Pakistan for all it was worth during the chill and confrontation of the Cold War. Then, this Muslim nation -- hacked by retreating British colonialists into a Muslim state from mostly Hindu South Asia -- was needed as a convenient comrade-in-arms against the Evil Empire. But once Moscow fell, so did U.S. concern for Pakistan.

Back to the future in South Asia: George W. Bush -- Reagan’s ideological successor -- is again playing the chummy Pakistan card. After 9/11, Pakistan became the launching pad to fight Al Qaeda -- conveniently next door to Afghanistan. Islamabad did the deal in return for aid. Then the Bushies needed Pakistan to punch up the U.S. president’s near-declaration of war against the "axis of evil" trio that includes Iran, right on Pakistan’s western border: And thus more U.S. aid.

So Pakistan, over the decades, has been a convenient ally living in a "bad" neighborhood. The issue now, however, is whether Pakistan will once again -- following the pattern -- be discarded after the latest U.S. panic attack recedes. But a nation with 142 million Muslims --- 97% of its population, like Iraq’s -- may no longer be so disposable as before. What’s more, Pakistan now has a leader who appears to know how to play the geopolitical game as well as anyone.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is a former military leader who led a coup a few years ago terminating a corrupt parliamentary government -- one that was not much more democratic than, say, the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea. Turns out, he may be the most charming dictator since the late Anwar Sadat of Egypt.

That was evident for all to see during his U.S. visit last week. Musharraf -- technically "elected" -- showed up at the usual high-toned foreign-affairs venues, including two of the toniest on the West Coast. In one closed-door session chaired by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, security was as tight as if he had been Bush himself; at most events the audience was nearly entirely Muslim. But at one, there
were a handful of American Hindus in the audience, and they marveled at the Pakistani’s performance. "Whatever his flaws, and his government’s flaws," declaimed one Hindu-American, "Musharraf is a first-class diplomat and statesman and is the best public-relations tool Pakistan has."

Musharraf thus presents an interesting dilemma for both the United States and India. Even a small measure of success in modernizing and democratizing Pakistan will make it more difficult ­ not to mention extremely unwise -- for the United States to let his country go to the Muslim-extremist dogs.
Yet, a too-close Pakistan-U.S. relationship might anger rival India (while also complicating the latter’s domestic politics) and roil relations that Washington has been eager to improve, especially to keep India from getting too close to China. A Beijing-New Delhi axis in Asia against American-Japanese interests is not what we want.

Yet the wisest U.S. policy would push forward with Pakistan nonetheless. U.S. relations with the Muslim world are at a low point. America can’t afford to make enemies of Muslim states, especially those that have tried to help. Isn’t it possible to relate to the Islamic world with the same maturity and common purpose as we once related to Europe?

Not taking the U.S.-Pakistan relationship beyond this convenient and trendy short-term "coalition of the willing" friendship would add another heavy black U.S mark in the Muslim equation. By contrast, with
steady U.S. support, Pakistan, despite its nuclear-tipped enmity with nuclear-tipped India over ever-contentious Kashmir, conceivably could become a true Islamic democracy. Sure, its current experiment with federalism is fraught with problems and could blow up in Islamabad’s face -- literally and figuratively -- should extremists seize control of the country’s outer provinces. Also, its intelligence services must not be permitted to remain a secret government.

But it is just these hurdles that make Musharraf more than just a public-relations asset. He is the best shot Pakistan now has. A rough analogy is the late Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli militarist Arabs detested
(as many Indians hate Musharraf for his past misdeeds as a military man). But then Rabin became a prime minister for peace: Is Musharraf a similar man of destiny that both South Asia’s Hindus need as much as the region’s Muslims?

In the end, the general may prove to be as mediocre (and/or corrupt) as his predecessors. If not, however, the world may have found a true friend of world peace, in fair weather or foul.

The above weekly column has just appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser, The South China Morning Post and The Straits Times of Singapore. The author, Tom Plate, is a regular columnist at these three papers. The column also appears in other world newspapers, including The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, The Japan Times and The Korea Times. Email him at: tplate@ucla.edu.

For publication and reprint rights, contact the author directly or John Simpson (john.simpson@latsi.com) of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate International.

Previous Columns:

Why Not Invade China? (June 30, 2003)

An Asian Watcher Likes What He Sees (June 23, 2003)

Grabbing an Indian Tiger by the Tail (June 16, 2003)

Wolfing Down the Entire World? (June 9, 2003)

© 2003 Tom Plate/ Asia Pacific Media Network