The State Dept picks the wrong horse in Pakistan
Take a moment to read the first two paragraphs of this Newsweek piece on the State Dept's response to the Bhutto killing.
This is classic Bush administration. Find someone who will cooperate in the trappings of political consensus, and elevate them regardless of the realities.
We've seen it several times with several different groups in Iraq, the elevation of Fatah and disregarding of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the disaster of Siniora in Lebanon, and of course there's the constituentless Karzai.
How is this developmental model working out?
It was a decidedly odd moment. On Thursday, within hours of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters in Washington that his boss, Condoleezza Rice, had quickly made two calls. One was to Bhutto's bereaved husband, Asif Ali Zardari. Rice's other call, Casey said, was to the man he called Bhutto's "successor," Amin Fahim, the vice chairman of her Pakistan Peoples Party. Casey couldn't even quite master this obscure politician's name, but he said, "I'll leave it up to Mr. Amin Fahir—Fahim—as the new head of the Pakistan People's Party to determine how that party is going to participate in the electoral process."
The problem is, nobody but the State Department—especially not the political elites in Pakistan, even those within Bhutto's own party—sees Fahim in such a role, and certainly not so soon. Critics suggest that the administration is so eager to graft legitimacy onto President Pervez Musharraf, its ever-more-unpopular ally in the war on terror, that it is pressing too hard to move past Bhutto and continue with scheduled Jan. 8 parliamentary elections, even though riots are paralyzing the country. "They're trying to rush everything. This is a disaster," says Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Depratment official and current scholar at the Middle East Institute. "This is now our new game plan: We're working out a deal between Fahim and Musharraf after the election. They mention Fahim because they don't know any better. The fact is, she [Bhutto] didn't trust him."
This is classic Bush administration. Find someone who will cooperate in the trappings of political consensus, and elevate them regardless of the realities.
We've seen it several times with several different groups in Iraq, the elevation of Fatah and disregarding of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the disaster of Siniora in Lebanon, and of course there's the constituentless Karzai.
How is this developmental model working out?
4 Comments:
"How is this developmental model working out?"
As I've said before, we seem to keep thinking that democracy automatically produces pro-U.S. governments. When it doesn't, it's seen as some kind of aberration; you hit on several poignant examples.
The White House just wants an election in Pakistan, because elections are "good". So they need some stooge to run against Musharraf and lose. That way, we've "restored democracy", even though the status quo remains unchanged.
Democracy is great, really, but it's not a panacea and it's not a "one size fits all" proposition. It isn't even inherently "pro-Western", which is why we backed so many dictatorships in the Cold War.
Bush's "developmental model" is optimised for stable, mostly ethnically and economically homogeneous cases. Instead, it's been applied across the board, whether it fits or not.
By Todd Dugdale , at 4:40 PM
I agree with your statement on a general level, Palestine, Lebanon, but in Pakistan, I would argue that they're not really after elections except in how they might be used to ratify leadership the US already wants.
By mikevotes, at 5:16 PM
"...in Pakistan, I would argue that they're not really after elections except in how they might be used to ratify leadership the US already wants."
So you think they really want Musharraf, then?
He hasn't done much of anything for Bush, et al.
Or is he "the devil we know"?
Not criticising, just curious what you base that on.
Bush has been pushing elections for over a year now. Bhutto looked pretty good to win. If Bush was pushing elections to ratify Musharraf, it wasn't very smart. If Bush was trying to ratify Bhutto, there's no point in pushing the elections forward. That's my basis for contending that Bush is simply settling for bragging that he restored democracy.
By Todd Dugdale , at 9:07 PM
My opinion,
Musharraf was not going to allow the release of all power to Bhutto so the best that could be hoped for was some sort of powersharing backed /justified by the elections.
The plan, I think, was to get a lever on Musharraf, Bhutto symbolizing the centrist educated dissent and crank on it.
And in this plan, he could still crow about elections and democracy the way they crow about democracy in Saudi. (Yes, I know it's not there, but they claim it based on the extremely modest partial, local elections.)
By mikevotes, at 10:02 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home