Pakistan's Musharraf: Moderator of war vs terror
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.