State of emergency: Martial law or justifyable security concern?

In previous weeks, I had examined the incident of former Prime Minister Benzir Bhutto’s convoy bombing. This week a new development has occurred in Pakistan, compelling me to revisit the issue. President Musharraf recently declared a state of emergency. In doing so, justices were temporarily kept in the judiciary building, television and radio stations were taken over my paramilitaries, telephone lines to the capital, Islamabad, were cut, and the constitution was suspended. Traditionally, I would have researched this topic from main media outlets. This week I decided to take a different approach. In an attempt to take the “pulse” of bloggers and to examine the opinions and perspectives of non-mainstream media, I decided to venture outside of the confines of BBC and CNN and explore the relatively unpredicted blogosphere. It seemed as though everyone had an opinion about Musharaff's declaration of emergency. Among the many blogs that I read, I found two that seemed to give the full picture. The first blog was written by a conglomeration of writers who originally created their blog to explore America’s “fraudulent monetary system” but has evolved into “a quest for truth for all aspects of human behavior”. The second blog is also written by a loose collaboration of writers, who write in a style wholly informal, with a strong underground feeling, despite this they are quite informed and seem to be a very educated group. Each writer has a pseudonym which further emphasizes its intellectual underground tone.

Musharraf Imposes Emergency Rule to Stay in Power:
I enjoyed your post. I thought it was timely and definitely an important issue in the international sphere. You referenced a variety of news sources which gave your entry more authority and further emphasized the importance of the issue by demonstrating that it is an issue that has invaded the airwaves so to speak. You mentioned several different aspects of the declaration of a state of emergency. Such things as: supreme court chief justice Chaudhry (seen below) being relieved of his duties, barring judges inside the judiciary building, paramilitaries taking over TV and radio stations, telephone lines being cut in the capital, and Bhutto returning from Dubai shortly after hearing the news. All these components together definitely make for the imposition of martial law, which you stated through a quote by Talat Massoud “He has now resorted to emergency which will mean human rights will be suspended and there will be further attempts to intimidate the judiciary”. While there are obvious political consequences, I had hoped you would elaborate and give your thoughts on the matter. If this military rule becomes overtly oppressive, what will be the response of the United States? Should they protect an authoritarian leader who happens to be an ally in the war on terror, or should they turn their back on their ally and ensure that democratic elections take place in January? I also would have liked to see your thoughts on the possible contagion effect this could have on the region, especially Kashmir and their not so stable relationship with India.

Pakistani Powder Keg:
I agree that Pakistan has become a ticking time bomb throughout the course of the past couple of weeks. With the bombing of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s convoy, the tentative back stage deal that the United States brokered for a power sharing government, and Musharraf’s growing unpopularity due to his alliance with the US in the war on terror. I was very interested on your theory of the timing of the declaration of the state of emergency. I hadn’t taken into consideration the effect that Bhutto could have as an opposition force to Musharraf. Since Musharraf had pardoned her previous crimes of supposed embezzlement, Musharraf would need an alternate reason for her detainment or deportment. You briefly mentioned your speculations as to whether or not the Pakistani army would be able to “hold firm in a protracted fight against Islamist rebels, as the military's morale has already been questioned”. I had hoped you would have elaborated on that point. What was your source for that information? Why has troop morale decreased? You also mentioned that Pakistani leaders had made it clear to Musharraf that if he continued this state of emergency the United States would be obligated to decline their investment in the Pakistani armed forces. This issue has the potential to plunge the entire state into civil war, my only hope, which I’m sure you share with me, is that this conflict does not spread to neighboring areas.

Musharraf and Bhutto: US Pipedream or Reality?

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (seen left), ready to come out of self imposed exile, returned to her homeland on Thursday the 19th. She was welcomed by thousands of members of the Pakistan’s People’s Party (PPP), and the throngs of supporters was so dense that the motorcade was forced to a crawl. A jubilant Bhutto sat on the top of a two-story bus and greeted her countrymen. The scene soon erupted into utter chaos as two bombs were detonated killing over one hundred people. The night of celebration had turned into a nightmare that will undoubtedly become forever ingrained in the memory of Karachi’s citizens. The loss of any human life to conflict is a tragedy; especially when the victims are innocent bystanders. Understanding these horrific acts of terror has become an obsession; to understand seems paramount for closure. However, an examination of any act of terrorism always involves the question “why?” In order to answer the why, it is necessary to examine the political atmosphere and how this attack is so significant. A combination of civil unrest, political instability and the reluctance of a military leader to share power with an adversary could be a very fair explanation for these recent outbreaks of violence in the region.

Bhutto comes from one of the world’s most famous political dynasties, comparable to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty in India. She was educated at Harvard and Oxford, and has overcome almost insurmountable obstacles to become the political powerhouse she is today. She was twice elected to the prime ministership, 1988-1990 and 1993-1996, however on both instances she was dismissed by the President on charges of corruption, of which she has never been convicted and claims the charges were politically motivated. In 1999, Bhutto fled to Dubai amid serious allegations of corruption in order to escape an almost assured prison sentence. She has become increasingly unpopular among Islamic extremists for her liberal democratic position and her advocacy for women’s rights; in addition her strengthened alliance with the United States government has incensed her conservative rivals. While her ideological base has stirred the political pot, her new amnesty deal with President Musharraf has also caused some political backlash. The deal was brokered as part of a package of requests that Bhutto was negotiating pending her power sharing deal with Musharraf. Along with the amnesty agreement for her alleged corruption charges, Bhutto has requested that Musharraf amend the Pakistani constitution to allow her to serve a third term as prime minister and that Musharraf surrender his political ability to dissolve parliament. While Musharraf has not agreed to the last item, his approval of her amnesty is partly responsible for his recent decline in popularity.

The United States has decided to support this unlikely union in order to promote political stability in Pakistan, since the US needs a strong Pakistan and a pro-United States leadership to help them in the war on terror. Given their troubled past as political opponents I am very skeptical about the success of this arrangement. Helene Cooper from the New York Times states: “The administration concluded over the summer that a power sharing deal with Bhutto might be the only way the General Musharraf could keep from being toppled”. In addition, if parliament would no longer be subject to dissolution that would be a positive step towards democracy. However, as this is a political issue, it has equal potential to becoming a catalyst for civil war in Pakistan. The bombing of Bhutto’s procession on Thursday, is a very good indication of not only the lack of control of these terrorist groups in Pakistan, but the ferocity of extremist dissent on the matter. Baitullah Mehsud, a member of a terrorist cell based in Pakistan commented: “We don’t accept President General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto because they only protect the US interest and see things through it’s glasses”. This of course further emphasizes how shortsighted and politically backward this deal is.

If Musharraf and Bhutto succeed in creating a power sharing government, there is a potential that terrorist attacks would be revitalized. New York Times reports: “State Department bureaucrats also fret that her turbulent past will further inflame an already volatile country”. However, there is also serious doubt that this power-sharing government will even be successful on the most basic level. Bruce Reidel: “The backroom deal I think is going to explode in our face….Ms Bhutto and Mr Musharraf detest each other and the concept that they can somehow work collaboratively is a real stretch”. If there is a constant power struggle in this co-operative government, the war on terror could be forestalled, which of course is counterintuitive for the United States, since their reason for supporting Bhutto was to strengthen the Pakistani government (as seen with President Bush at right).

This new government backed by Bhutto has the potential of bringing democratic principles: “The Pakistan People’s Party and I represent everything they (terrorists) fear the most- modernization, democracy, equality for women, information and technology. We represent the future of a modern Pakistan, a future that has no place in it for ignorance and terrorism”. However, the potential for destabilizing the region is a viable threat, this civil war has a very high contagion effect and could very well spread to other vulnerable regions such as Kashnmir, threatening their fragile relations with Inda. This transition of power should be monitored, Western powers can only hope that Musharraf’s government will be able to handle a civil uprising without resorting to Martial Law. If Musharraf declares a state of emergency which would also mean canceling upcoming elections, the United States would be politically and normatively obligated to withdraw aid. This power sharing deal seems more like an accelerant towards conflict, my only hope is that whatever damage comes of this, be curtailed quickly.