Pakistan, a problem without a solution?
James Forsyth 6:12pm
The New York Times Magazine profile of Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan who is known by the nickname of Mr 10 percent, is a depressing reading. It leaves you with little doubt that Zadari is not the kind of effective leader that Pakistan needs now. Then, in its final paragraphs, it turns its attention to the most likely alternative to Zadari:
As always with Pakistan, you are left all too aware of the problem but none the wiser as to what a solution might be. With the Taliban and other extremists having already put—by some estimates—half of the country beyond the authority of the state, the time to come up with a solution is running short.‘American officials, increasingly convinced both that Zardari is not the interlocutor they had hoped for and that his days in power may be numbered, have begun to pay more attention to Sharif, long considered dangerously close to Islamist forces. Leading PML-N officials say they have learned from past mistakes. They have learned, for example, to accept an independent media and an independent judiciary. It’s not clear if Sharif himself has profited from experience. In the course of a phone conversation last week, he passed up all opportunities for self-scrutiny and advocated a response to terrorism that combined dialogue with tribal elders and economic and social development; military force was apparently not part of the equation.’
Previous
David Lindsay
April 7th, 2009 6:56pm Report this commentAs Peter Hitchens is wont to say, Pakistan is not a country with an army, but an army with a country. A permanent unit is maintained to stage a coup whenever the generals deem it appropriate, as they do remarkably often.
No civilian politician is allowed anywhere near the nuclear codes. Whereas the “Islamist militants” whose potential acquisition of those codes is supposed to frighten us silly, while they probably do not have them, are certainly too important politically to be left in the outer darkness where these matters are concerned.
And yet, and yet, and yet, and yet… Somehow, what can reasonably claim to be the strangest country in the world, even including North Korea, manages to get by. And will presumably continue to get by, unless anyone is daft enough to bomb her in futile pursuit of Osama Bin Laden.
They should instead be looking to the other country where the oligarchy rules in uneasy alliance with the Islamist clergy, but without even the semblance of a democratic process. It was from there that the 9/11 attacks came. But it is from there that the Bushes’ and the Clintons’ money also comes.
Verity
April 7th, 2009 6:59pm Report this commentOne look at India and at Pakistan tells you everything you need to know. They both started as independent countries with clean slates on 15 August, 1947. And India had one hand tied behind its back by the "non-aligned" policies of Nehru and his daughter Indira for almost 40 years. Until 1984. India is now steaming ahead to world power status.
Pakistan is still where it was in 1947, except it has the bomb, that someone gave it. India also has the nuclear weapons, but developed them themselves.
Gil
April 7th, 2009 9:03pm Report this commentDAvid Lindsay, I'm curious as to your comment that 'No civilian politician is allowed anywhere near the nuclear codes'.
Can you back this up with a source? I don't believe that this is the case.
Many thanks.
Niluccio
April 8th, 2009 12:25am Report this commentAgree things look very bleak at present.
NOT facing down the Taliban (and letting them trample over human rights) is NOT, however, going to make things better in my view.
I've blogged for Amnesty on the recent Swat valley flogging video: http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=2934
Cheers, N.
David Ossitt
April 8th, 2009 12:38pm Report this commentVerity writes Pakistan is still where it was in 1947.
She also pointed out that they had the same clean slate start in 1947.
What she did not stress was that in 1947 areas of Pakistan were still as they were in 1647 many of it's population want to return to and live in the past.
One does not have to look far to see the reason why.
Verity
April 8th, 2009 1:47pm Report this commentDavid Ossitt - You are correct. Democratically speaking, if they want to live in the Dark Ages, it should be their human right to do so. The only thing is, they don't qualify for membership of the 21st Century Club of civilised nations. (And if they'd had to invent their own nuclear device, they wouldn't have one. India invented its own.)
David Ossitt
April 8th, 2009 2:21pm Report this commentVerity
As is becoming usual; I agree.
David Lindsay
April 8th, 2009 4:41pm Report this commentGil, it depends how you define a civilian politician, of course. As I said, an army with a country, not a country with an army.
The generals alone have any control over the bomb. Even if they somehow allowed an Islamist takeover (and they wouldn't), that wouldn't put the bomb in Islamist hands.
David Ossitt
April 8th, 2009 7:15pm Report this commentDavid Lindsay
"Even if they somehow allowed an Islamist takeover (and they wouldn't"
David what do you think they have in the Tribal Areas?
Are they not governed by Islamist?
ahsan
April 9th, 2009 1:05pm Report this commentThe NewYork Time is hugely mistaken by projecting Nawaz Sharif as an alternative to Zardari. Being a Pakistani myself, we know that it is not a civilian leader you need to tackle the Talibs. Its our army you need to convince or coerce ,to get rid of this Gini they created. Once and for all. For your own good, and ours too. Nawaz is still harping about this war not being ours. It is too difficult for him to make a U turn on the promises and commitments he has made in public. Zardari has been realistic enough to own the war.
Sikander Hayat
April 9th, 2009 1:18pm Report this commentI don’t agree with the collapse in six months theory as Pakistan has been subjected to these kind of warning many times before in last many decades. There has never been more perilous time when Soviets were knocking at Pakistan’s door and doomsayer’s predicted an imminent collapse.
But one thing is for sure and that is the fact that things will get a lot worse from here onwards before they start to get better.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
Back to top