David Miliband seems a mild sort of chap. He would not say boo to a goose, let
alone send a gunboat up the Ganges to teach fuzzy-wuzzies a lesson. Yet like
all ministers entering the portals of the Foreign Office and gazing at
murals of Britain’s global magnificence, the spirit of the place gets to
him. He has the imperial itch.
Hence, on a dull day with not much on, Miliband girds his loins and declares
that some “situation”, say in Sudan or Burma or Iran or Pakistan, is “wholly
unacceptable” or “of deep concern” or even “intolerable”. The named country
is never run by white men and the phrases are usually empty. When Jack
Straw, his predecessor, found somewhere unacceptable, as he frequently did
Darfur, we could be sure he meant to accept it.
No other European country grandstands like this and only America elsewhere.
Most people regard the internal politics of other states as not their
business and signed up to the United Nations on that principle. If the
French, the Germans or the Russians have a dog in some fight, they look to
the dog not the kennel. They negotiate their interests privately.
Not so Miliband. Last week he telephoned Islamabad to indicate to Shaukat
Aziz, Pakistan’s prime minister, “what actions we now expect his government
to take” – as if the man were still a servant of the Raj. Since Pakistan’s
leadership cadres were from Sandhurst and the Inner Temple, Miliband seemed
to assume continued obedience to Britain. Suspending the constitution and
incarcerating political opponents was just not on.
President Musharraf should pull his socks up, Miliband warned in tones of a
housemaster threatening no toad-in-the-hole for tea.
If Iran is on the West’s axis of evil, Pakistan is on its axis of dread. Such
has been the incompetence of western intervention in this region that
American and British diplomats have been left with a dwindling number of
allies. The two closest are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the former odious and
corrupt, the latter now the world’s largest military dictatorship with a
population of 165m.
George Bush and Tony Blair referred to Musharraf as “our best friend”. He was
the acceptable face of Islamic autocracy, largely because he was prepared to
back America and Britain in the 2001 war against the Taliban and the
subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. That friendship and the occupation of
Afghanistan have sorely weakened him. Sure as night follows day, Pakistan’s
Pashtun and Baluchi provinces became springboards for Afghan insurgency,
funded by Gulf oil money and opium.
The British and Americans in Kabul would never be able to counter this. Nor
could Musharraf safely infringe the autonomy of the tribal lands along the
Afghan border to curb Taliban support. Everyone knew this from the start.
But when wishful thinking got into bed with stupidity there was no guessing
what monster would result.
Now Musharraf is in trouble from every angle. On American orders his army has
taken 800 fatalities from pro-Taliban tribes in Waziristan and faces defeat.
Armies do not like that. Musharraf has contrived what his forebears
carefully avoided: alienating the judiciary over what constituted a
“national emergency”.
He has capitulated to pressure to allow back opposition politicians, notably
Benazir Bhutto, who has never shaken off allegations of corruption, but that
has brought no peace. He faces elections next February and who knows what
horrors they will yield.
The tut-tutting of America and Britain over Musharraf’s constitutional coup on
November 3 is probably cosmetic. Outside opinion may condemn the arrest of
judges and preach the gospel according to John Stuart Mill, but this is like
the Salvation Army in Guys and Dolls.
There is too much sin in town for any soundbite to handle.
The West appears to have pressed for Bhutto’s return in the hope that she
might form a coalition with Musharraf and the ever-powerful army.
Since the chance of February’s elections producing a stable, popular
government must be near zero, the West’s hope is presumably for Musharraf to
muddle through while retaining some sort of control or be replaced by
another general, lubricated with $1 billion a year in military aid.
Dictatorship is a survival game and the dictator’s allies must play it or
leave.
Seen from afar Pakistan remains enigmatic. For more than 60 years’ existence
it has been ruled half by devious generals and half by corrupt politicians:
leaving an open question as to which was worse. Under Musharraf, who toppled
Nawaz Sharif, the last democratic leader, in 1999 the stock market has
boomed, the middle class has expanded (including an army of underemployed
lawyers) and the army has prospered.
Pakistan’s media, professions and universities are, by Islamic standards,
relatively free, which is why Musharraf’s toppling of his chief justice and
the repressive elements in last week’s declaration of martial law were so
inept. But, as Anatol Lieven of King’s College London remarks, by world
standards this has been “a pretty genteel coup”.
Hovering over Musharraf’s head are some undeniably ominous responsibilities.
They include the custodianship of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, any hope of
curbing the jihadist madrasahs and training camps, the future of Hamid
Karzai’s regime in Kabul and the ever-present conflict with India. All
impact on the Anglo-American crusade to bring democracy to the suffering
Muslims at the point of a gun, a crusade now in deep trouble.
The West’s patronage of Musharraf was initially successful in propping up a
likeable dictator who might resist the then not serious threat that
Islamists might get their hands on a nuclear weapon. Indeed, part of the
pact between Islamabad and the Islamists’ power base in the tribal lands
near Afghanistan was that each would keep off the other’s turf. Were it not
for the poison of the Afghan war, Pakistan’s anarchical federalism was
probably sustainable, with even some hope of ferreting out Osama Bin Laden.
The occupation has wrecked such hope and turned antiwestern sentiment into a
regional growth sector. It has not fostered democracy but, in Pakistan’s
case, probably postponed it. While the “old” Taliban are unlikely to rule
again in Kabul, it is clear that the Nato coalition cannot protect the rest
of that country from its reincarnation, as last Monday’s Panorama
documentary illustrated. Karzai, the Afghan leader, is clearly right to cut
deals with insurgent warlords and drug lords wherever he can. Like
Musharraf, he is looking only to survival.
The truth is that this region has proved to be a graveyard for liberal
intervention and neoconservatism alike. It is X-certificate diplomacy,
strictly for realists and grown-ups. It may be uncomfortable that a military
dictator the West regarded as house-trained has turned out to be not
house-trained at all. But that is life in the wide world.
Every risk was taken by the West in Pakistan. Its outrageous nuclear ambitions
were appeased. Its support against the Taliban was bought without thought of
the impact on its turbulent politics. The cooperation of the army was
assumed. The discipline of dictatorship was harnessed to the cause of
antiterrorism. Everyone played with fire.
It is by no means self-evident that anything after Musharraf must be “better”,
least of all for British interests. London’s record in projecting
postdictatorial utopias is not good at present. Pompous lectures on the
virtues of democracy might be appropriate in the abstract, but from a nation
losing not one but two wars in its cause these lectures might come amiss.
Musharraf may have gone too far down the road of repression to hold his
country behind him. It may be that a more benign military junta will follow
him or that he will peacefully transfer power to a new, uncorrupt and
enlightened parliament under Bhutto and her allies. Pigs may fly. Gambling
on it, when Britain is still in imperialist/ adventurist mode, is reckless.
All that seems certain is that Miliband is unlikely to be a better judge of
how to rule Pakistan than are Pakistanis, whether in or out of uniform. He
and his colleagues have done enough damage in this region already. Pakistan
has enough on its plate without being lectured by the political curators of
Baghdad, Basra and Kabul. It should be left to its own devices.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
The Pakistan miseries are caused by UN agencies. How can a country maintain Law and order where 3 million Afghans are roaming just because UN had done nothing to repatriate them. Russians went out in 1988 and 20 years have passed this UN bureacracy have failed. Pakistan has always been used by West and then left alone. The way west now is supporting Musharraf is a shameful act.
Dr A S Arslan, London, UK
spot on
Sajid Kaul, lahore, pakistan
Pakistan does not have the centuries of historical evolution into a modern country such as the UK. It is barely 60 years old.
It is following a different path. The path is strong leadership to guide and Dictate to the country how it should be run.
Neighbours such as China have followed similar paths. China is not a democracy, but it seems to be evolving into a technical and wealthier nation. Proof that democracy is not the be all and end all.
In the end it is all about making money for your country to make ends meet and feed mouths. Mush seems to do it quite well.
If Britain wants to interfere to mould Pakistan in it's own shape, perhaps Mr Milliband can throw a few billion into Pakistan's education system. Then perhaps there would be less demand for Mullahs to teach children and more demand for University places
Abid, Shipley, UK
Send Sarkozy.
GK, Calgary, Canada
i mean the west is telling pakistan what to do for example free media , but have you ever do a bit research and study how you word things or the way you saying it in most of your news chanels,if is not of your own intersts.
why you killing people or own soldiers in iraq and other countries .
why you telling other not built bombs and misiles when you got 100,s of your own.
if you want to help them get rid of currupt politicians ,help them in education help them to get there part of kashmir from indian or free from indian illigal accupation.
in simple words i would say i think its your politics to make paksitan more weak so you can get rid of his military power like atom that is the plan of the game.
liakat khan, leeds, united kingdom
As usual Simon Jenkins remains one of the most incisive and realist commentator in the British press. It was evident from the beginning of this US-UK –Pakistan alliance that Mushariff and the army was extremely uncomfortable but also opportunistic with the liaison. With a bellicose India on its borders pushing for Pakistan to be isolated and Bush regime threatening to bomb Pakistan out of twentieth century, the General took the option of publicly declaring support for US and against ‘terrorists’ while his intelligence services and army maintained links with the child of their own creation, the Taliban. Many in Pakistan praised his foresight and commended him for saving Pakistan. No one of note in Pakistan believed that he was going to break the Taliban’s back. Even the Taliban and AQ generally kept their anti Mushariff campaigns low key. They were the General’s insurance against Indo-US plans in the region and a bait for long term aid to fuel the economy.
Now the game is revving up. With US trying to install a pliant Bhutto who will no doubt allow US far more excess than Mushariff ever did, the General is engaged in a game of wits against several interests.
Milliband is entirely silly in making the statement he made. The largely Punjabi-Pushtun Pakistan army and this current General intensely dislike reminders of ex-colonialist sanctioning their actions. It hardens their resolve to frustrate the US-UK role in the region while pretending to play the compliant clients in public.
Kala Singh, Southall, Middleex
Leave Pakistan to its own devices? What delicious irony from the very people who created this monster. The British talk piously of democracy but are the arch anti democrats and the Satans of inequity. What they did to South Asia during their imperial slave rule was a travesty of democratic aspirations; a fact proven by the lack of democratic institutions in every South Asian nation except perhaps India where democracy is really only skin deep and where the police state and stiffling venal bureaurocracy created by the British dominate the political and social landscape.
So I say to Milliband go ahead and meddle; your predecessors did all the damage that could possibly have been done. You could not do any worse. And anyway, it is in the British tradition to meddle in the affairs of colored people; after all we are the White Man's burden.
Kishore , Galena, Illinois
Simon
Have you ever thought of offering your services to HMG? They sorely need them. Well written and knowledgeable about the ME and the vainglorious ambitions of post-post-empire politicians as always.
John Doyle, Madrid,
Talk about rock and a hard place, the military dictator, the corrupt or the ex cricketer. I would stick with Mush.
Bill Luke, St Helens, UK
Paul
Ah, of course.....wars are no longer what they used to be - much less wars for democracy.
But based on this size, Anguilla and Falklands should rate a British win or two.
Gautam Pingle, Hyderabad, India
Huffing and puffing in moral indignation is all that young Milliband can manage. His lack of stature is a true reflection of Britain's sorry position in the world.The more huffing and puffing the more obvious the impotence and ignorance. Anyway it's obvious that Pakistan is totally ungovernable except by the military -Mushraraff, sadly like Saddam is as good as it gets.I blame Mountbatten and Jinna for coniving in creating Pakistan, the ,'Pure State' to help Britain get out of India at full speed. A disastrous decision like all the Britsih 'partitions' (N.Ireland ,Israel) taken against all reasonable Indian avdice - a sop to Muslim pressure which broke Ghandi's heart. Remember that the current Muslim population of India is greater than that of Pakistan! Anyway,British Foreign Policy aftrer Iraq is becoming something of a joke anyway -another part of TB's famous 'legacy'?
David, Uzes, France
All I can say is: close European borders and leave them on their own.
Fabio C, London, UK
Musharraf is between a rock & a hard place. His removal will lead to intense upheaval in Pakistan. He is the best of the available bunch & should be advised in a constructive way rather than castigated. Just think of what would happen in Afgahnistan if he were not in command of the army & in control ?
Dr. Soli Contractor, Worcester Park, Surrey
And almost 5 million of its religious citizens now live amongst us, here in the UK.
All that we've done in the past 3 decades is to import Pakistan's problems of democracy and faith. How are we to resolve them when Pakistan won't or can't?
David Downes, Chester, UK
Jenkins analysis as to the present is on the mark, but not knowing the cultural, traditional, religious, real corruption status quo, ignorance of the Sub Continent and forgetting that its was Britain that through partition and ensuing civil war that created Pakistan . Then meddling, instigating the animosities and wars between neighbors.
Pakistan like India (to a lesser extend) is caught in the same dilemma, that 90% of the populace consisting of the poverty stricken, ignorant and manipulated villagers have no real say in the management of their country and its affairs. For these 90% nothing has changed and the new masters of their own kind, who replaced the Raj, are even worst.
Not withstanding the interests of US and UK and their meddling, Pakistan with or out without nuclear weapons is its own worst enemy along with dictators and western educated corrupt leaders and politicians.
The only viable solution is for Pakistan to rid itself of the Bhuttos and the the dictator.
Chui, Atlanta, USA
David Miliband has a duty to tell the Political Opposition Parties in Pakistan to stop colluding with radicals and Mullahs as they are undermining the NATO Coalition work under the UN mandate.
If an opposition party was ever elected their Government would collapse and radicalism would be parallel to that of Iran if not worse. Furthermore proliferation would go out of control.
Thus either there is a commitment to a Geo regional non proliferation treaty and adherence to Human Rights or the region will descend to chaos and radicalism.
Their country needs a coherent manifesto and intellectual leadership. Mr Milliband should focus to creating a Geo regional non proliferation treaty and the inclusion of the Non NPT member states to that Regional treaty.
Either we have intellectual leadership through the IAEA and the UN or we shall have instability in the region as a whole.
The Director, LONDON, England
I totally disagree with Ted, Pakistan is itself responsible for its woes. Militancy, fundamentalism is not new to Pakistan. For West, present Pakistani state and incidents might be new. Ask any person who knows the sub-continent's history, Pakistan has nutured and grown militancy without the west's interference since long. We have beared the burns of that continue to do so. West has turned a blind eye to our problems here in India. But now the fire has reached their homes, so this panic reaction.
Pakistanis deserve this, so do their rulers and also those people who kept on supporting the Pakistani establishment time and again.
West has made mistakes in the past and today also they continue with that.
Rahul, Pune, India
Can we please let the rest of the world get on solving their own problems?
And can we get on with solving our homegrown problems that we see every day just outside our front door? Transport, housing for the first time buyer and wasted tax money to prop up the public sector come to mind right away.
Pepper, London, UK
Finnish goverment is working on to create a law to force nurses to work. Can you believe it?! Does it mean that the nurses are not allowed to demand better salary or make a strike for it...
Elli, Finland,
Simon Jenkins: Britain initially and US later, propped up Pakistan. There was intensive meddling in the affairs of Pakistan. The Raj attitude did continue. The net results are: a nuclear Pakistan, Islamic extremism and terrorism internally and for export liberally, a highly divided nation with regional aspirations, a corrupt and self serving military and politicians.
When the UK and US are neck deep in the affairs of Pakistan, you can't back off. Old habits die hard! So Mr. Milband did what he considers as normal. Of course, he forgot that now the US and UK have their roles and options steadily decreasing.
At least from UK's angle, it ought to know its limitations and be careful while meddling in other nations. Or else, there will be more humiliations as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan!
Regards,
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
Quite correct; I've been surprised by Miliband's protestations. Pakistan is not a British colony; it is nothing to do with us. The Pakistanis must be allowed to sort their own problems. Usually, the West backs the wrong horse; let's just let them get on with it. If they want our assistance, they can ask for it.
Dr Ian Burgess, Bristol,
Deranged guffaws!!!! You can say that again!!!!
Shirley Bowen, Bovey Tracey, UK
>If the French, the Germans or the Russians have a dog in some fight, they look to the dog not the kennel.
What about France on Iran recently?
Rich Johnston, London,
If Milliband wants to sort out a mess, there plenty of messes much nearer home in need of urgent attention. The arrogance of New Labour beggars bekief when they make such an appalling mess of things in the UK and then presume to tell the rest of the world how they should govern. Like Blair before them , this lot find it easier to poke their noses in overseas where they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.
carole chapman, corridonia, italy
>Gautam Pingle:
>is Sir Simon referring to WWI and WWII? Pyrrhic victories, >maybe, but surely not lost!!
Simon Jenkins is referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.
paul, the hague, nl
What exactly does Simon Jenkins mean by saying:
"London’s record in projecting post dictatorial utopias is not good at present. Pompous lectures on the virtues of democracy might be appropriate in the abstract, but from a nation losing not one but two wars in its cause these lectures might come amiss."
If Britain is the nation that LOST two wars in the cause of democracy, is Sir Simon referring to WWI and WWII? Pyrrhic victories, maybe, but surely not lost!!
Gautam Pingle, Hyderabad, India
Spot on Simon.
Musharraf may not survive but it might help if the 'West' were seen
to be against him.In which case , the hectoring from the 'political' curators of Iraq would be a plus.
Long after Musharraf is gone, it will be the People of Pakistan that will , through the lens of time, see that what a great period this had been for them.Normal service will be resumed from the usual crowd once he is gone.
Its a shame it will take his removal for people to realise.
Javaid , Basingstoke,
Ah, the Ganges! Goes right up the middle of...err, where were we again?
Bruce Robertson, Brighton,
Setting aside Mr Baines' sarcasm, this is a very well written article by Simon Jenkins. Ultimately, Paks must figure out how to govern themselves with democratic checks and balances that work for them. Half-hearted attempts to intervene in Pakistan by UK or US every 10 years or so and that too when their help is indispensible to evict a communist super-power or ferret out some mad Yemeni-Saudi terrorist is really not the time to preach them about jeffersonian democracy. True Paks deserve better than mediocre generals or corrupt politicians. First let's be their friends for their sake and not a litany of favors and demands; then maybe as their trust builds in the west they might be more amenable to "good behavior".
Marc, Springfield, USA
But becuase USA and UK have interfered and treated Pakistan with its interests at their heart pure white hearts, it is the best country in the world for it to - have the highest GDP per capita, 100% literacy with the best system of education, every other Nobel prize winner would be a Pakistani, health care in Pakistan would be available to all Pakistanis ....
I guess just as what Mr Jenkins is truly saying is that Pakistani's shouldn't solve their own problems, Iraq had WMDs.
And I am sure if only USA and UK had interfered and tried to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, it wouldn't be such a miserable country in the world.
MA Arshad, Islamabad, Pakistan
Quite right Ted. The US should keep its nose out of other countries business as should its poodle Brown.
Jake, london,
I am sure if western countries had not interfered in Pakistan Pakistan would have the highest GDP per capita, 100% literacy with the best system of education, every other Nobel prize winner would be a Pakistani, health care in Pakistan would be available to all Pakistanis, religious freedom would be supreme in Pakistan, women would be equal to men and share power, polygamy and child marriage would be non-existent, wives would not be beaten up, women would not be imprisoned if they reported rape, the Taleban and AL Qaida would not make Pakistan their home, the military would be in its barracks, life would be utopia.
Shame on the USA and UK etc for making Pakistan the most miserable country in the world. You must not blame Pakistanis for their woes.
Ted Baines, New York, USA