Pakistan's Musharraf: Moderator of war vs terror

Natalia M.L.M. Morales Professor, Political Science and International Studies University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines Philippine Daily Inquirer Asia News Network Manila

The key actor who appears to be carrying well the weight of the U.S.-led war against terrorism is neither U.S. President George W. Bush or British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Instead, the distinction of the hour belongs to Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, an Indian-born Pakistani general. His action and statement on the day after the United States armed might attacked the three cities in Afghanistan were an exercise in foresight, temperance and faith.

These are the virtues that a terror-devastated world needs these days. It is Pakistan's leadership, the most strategic ally of the U.S. in its battle against terrorism now that approximates the model.

President Bush was rather emotional in his order to attack al- Qaida terrorist training camps and Taliban base of operations.

To Bush who is leading the crusade in what he declares as the world's defense of freedom, the choice is very clear.

The dilemma however is that the U.S. anti-terror rhetoric is comprehensive enough to even encompass Osama bin Laden and the Taliban's struggle to be free to keep their faith in the face of what they perceive as chronic warmongering from the infidels of the West.

The call for freedom from the U.S. as it battles terrorism may even be seen as incongruous when we associate freedom with 19th-century liberalism -- right to life, liberty, property and happiness.

The U.S. freezing the assets of the members of terrorist networks may have very little effect in the face of such holders of extremely ascetic and sacrificial ideology. By explicitly stating the war in terms of freedom as the West understands it, Bush and his advisers fall into the exact pit where Bin Laden likes to take them -- the clash of cultures -- freedom versus self-surrender -- and where capabilities don't match.

Strategy-wise this will not even ensure moderate converts from the Islamic world unless something more distinctive and creative becomes part of the West's philosophy against the "terrorists." But that is a verbal cul-de-sac for Bush and his allies. The boomerang effect of the word "terrorism" in the face of U.S. actions now in Afghanistan remains.

This is where Pakistan's Musharraf cuts a statesmanlike figure. Being in the center of the political and ideological whirlpool, he is a stabilizing presence, not combative or disruptive as the main protagonists are. It is no easy role considering the millions of Afghan refugees who are already in Pakistan which is in the east and south borders of Afghanistan.

Neither is it easy to quell the thousands of protesters of Pakistani Muslims sympathetic with the Taliban and Bin Laden's cause. One ace up Musharraf's sleeve is Pakistan's diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime (together with Sudan and Saudi Arabia). Musharraf has indeed fitted for himself, perhaps unknowingly, a pivotal role in the global alliance against terrorism. He brings a sense of moderation in the last bastion of diplomacy in a situation where force and counterforce, attack and counterattack, and spiraling casualties regrettably become the order of international affairs.

Musharraf's recent statements balance the sense of urgency in U.S. policies and giving bin Laden and the Taliban regime the benefit of the doubt and a respectable way out. After condoling with the U.S. and its victims in the recent attacks, Pakistan shows its solidarity with the U.S. in sharing with the latter intelligence, air space and logistical support.

His inability to persuade bin Laden to come out into the open (with the Taliban's protection) led to Musharraf underscoring that the fight was against terrorist elements, and not meant to erode the unity and integrity of Afghanistan.

He warned that the oppositionist Northern Alliance must not take advantage of the situation. He encourages that attacks must be poised against specific targets and should not cause collateral damage. He hopes that military actions would be short and targeted and no attempt must be made to impose upon the civilian population or cause their destruction.

Come to think of it, he is a like a secretary of state, army general, religious advisor and social policy advocate rolled into one. Only that he happens to be president of Pakistan, a U.S. ally most directly involved in containing terrorist powder keg.

Why Musharraf is able to do this is revealed only by a keen study of Afghan-Pakistan history whose peoples are ethnic relatives. The attraction of great powers to the area can explain why Britain had a long history of wars with the Afghan people throughout the 19th century and why the Russians keep coming back only to face defeat.

The Taliban regime's stringent policy on its women could have grown out of a historic desire for protectiveness against the foreign invaders who ravished the Afghan women in the past. This had enraged the Afghan men who vowed vengeance against Western interlopers. Afghan history embedded in its people the warrior psyche as the mujahideens in the Soviet war had shown.

Whatever validity these morsels of history may have, Musharraf must have learned these in good measure. It would do very well for the U.S. and its Western allies to listen to what this Pakistan general and president will have to say in the coming days.