Hi folks! I used to read the discussions on this forum, but posting for the first time. In these times of democracy building by US in muslim countries,
here is a view from Pakistan on the subject.
hipakistan.com/en/detail.php … ype=source
…A genuine contradiction started to develop between the US and Pakistan during the nineties. This had little to do with our flawed democracy and more with the development of our nuclear program. This is the one issue on which the Pakistani military and the American establishment have not seen eye to eye. This contradiction had the potential to pit the two against each other and the US was not too happy about the Musharraf take over. But the moment 9/11 happened, US needed Pakistan again and General Musharraf was ready to oblige. It has been a love fest between the two since then.
Democratic forces in the country keep looking towards the US for signs of support but there are none. This Republican administration in the US has put all its eggs in the Musharraf basket and laud him at every opportunity. It is unlikely to push him towards democratisation. The US support becomes a great source of strength for General Musharraf and allows him to continue ruling this country with impunity. The democrats would probably lick their wounds for many years to come.
Like the paper said, Pakistan has nuclear weapons… What do you recommend that we do instead? It is possible that any democratically elected government would a. not support us in cracking down on al Qaeda and b. might go really crazy with nuclear weapons development and proliferation. I recognize that this is an incredible gray zone, but would be most eager to hear any advice as to how we should balance these concerns? Care to share?
Should we support democracy in Pakistan at the expense of all of our other concerns or should we try to maintain stability there until we are freed up to deal with a loose cannon in Pakistan. We have finite resources and right now we are dealing with
Iraq
Afghanistan
Al Qaeda
Reform in Saudi Arabia
Iran
North Korea
Should we add Pakistan to the plate too if it goes hog wild? Where will the troops and money to deal with this come from? Or should we wait until we have finished putting out some of these other fires before we turn our attention to Pakistan? Your call.
This is a complicated situation.
If you read the article in full, you will find that the author say/imply the same thing as what you mentioned as possibilities a & b.
…Bhutto came in, the first Pakistani leader chosen in a fair and free election. It is not a surprise to me that during his tenure Pak-US relations hit its lowest point.
Bhutto’s crime was that he had the intellectual strength to inspire the Islamic World to work together as a block. He also emerged as its most articulate spokesman. He next went ahead and started to develop a nuclear weapon program for Pakistan. These were unacceptable crimes in US eyes and in the eyes of its proxy in our part of the world, Israel. Bhutto had to be taught a lesson and, as Kissinger said, made into a horrible example…
What struck me is the statement that it was the democratically elected
in pakistan that started the nuclear weapon programme. I believe that
given a chance, any democratic government in middle east (if allowed to form) will develope a a nuclear bomb of their own. Also I found the article saying something sensible about pakistan’s present situation especially because
it is originating from the general’s Musharaff’s own folks. So I think
going for true democracy in Iraq itself may not bode well for US perhaps!
A democracy in iraq might result in another islamic bomb (besides pakistan’s) after say 10 years! so what about some controlled democracy? I think that is what is President bush has in mind. What do you think?