US President George W. Bush rightly called Pakistan's recent national and provincial elections "a victory for [its] people."
But even as he uttered those words, his administration was working behind the scenes to subvert the will of the Pakistani people by trying to dictate the composition of their next coalition government and prop up the election's biggest loser, President Pervez Musharraf.
Bush is playing a dangerous game, risking the collapse of Pakistan's political process for the sake of his own legacy.
Millions of Pakistanis delivered a clear message at the polls. Collectively, they voted against Musharraf and religious extremists and in favor of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.
Nationally, no single party received a majority, but the centrist, democratic opposition won more than 70 percent of the National Assembly seats. The Musharraf-allied faction of the Muslim League party (PML-Q) came in third, polling only 15 percent, despite the assistance of surgical vote-rigging. Most of its senior leaders were defeated in their constituencies -- including one who hadn't lost an election in 26 years. The PML-Q, created in 1999 by Pakistan's intelligence agencies, is now political dead wood.
ALLIANCE
An alliance between the two largest parties, the late Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League faction (PML-N) is what the country needs and what most Pakistanis want. The PPP and PML-N have the numbers to form a unity government. They also realize that this is perhaps their last chance to "save" Pakistan.
Together with the pro-democracy army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, this coalition can address Pakistan's most pressing challenges, including terrorism. With the addition of smaller parties and independents to the coalition, they can also impeach Musharraf and restore the judiciary, which he had deposed.
This is unpalatable to the Bush administration, which has helped keep Musharraf in power, despite the fact that 75 percent of Pakistanis want him to resign.
The Bush administration considers the PML-N's nationalism and antagonism to Musharraf particularly troublesome. Sharif has called for Pakistan's foreign policy to be debated in parliament, but supports continued cooperation with the US. His party also wants the sacked Supreme Court justices to be restored.
The US government, however, endorsed the justice's illegal removal, seeing the court's insistence on constitutional accountability for Musharraf as complicating its regional objectives. The court, for example, required Musharraf to present alleged terror suspects -- some of whom were likely "rendered" to Pakistan by the CIA -- detained for years without government acknowledgment.
Of course, a popular, democratically elected government and an independent judiciary in Islamabad complicate relations with the US. Democracy is intrinsically messy, but it won't jeopardize Pakistan's partnership in the war on terror.
IMPATIENT
The Bush administration, however, has become used to dealing with one man and is increasingly impatient. In its final year, it would like to increase the odds of a Republican victory in November's US presidential election. Toward this end, progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan would be highly valuable.
As a result, the Bush administration is aggressively interfering in coalition talks between Pakistan's political parties. It wants to pair the PPP with the discredited PML-Q and isolate the PML-N. US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, for example, has held a joint meeting with senior Musharraf adviser Tariq Aziz and PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower.
US Vice President Dick Cheney's office is also reportedly playing an active role. Zardari, in a joint press conference with Sharif, refused to answer a question about whether there is pressure from the US to ally with Musharraf. But he and Sharif did agree "in principle" to form a government.
The Bush administration's forceful manipulation of Pakistan's political leadership is dangerous for both Pakistan and the US. Its favored arrangement could divide the opposition, keep Musharraf ascendant and provide continuity in the Pakistani army's campaign against militants.
But it would also likely delegitimize the next government before it comes into power, rupture Pakistan's largest political party and create a nationalist backlash against the US.
The US needs to take a step back and let Pakistan's political process proceed naturally. The end result might not be optimal, but if the Bush administration overplays its hand, it could find itself partnerless in Pakistan.
Arif Rafiq is the editor of the Pakistan Policy Blog.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS