Has it been worth billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid to support Pervez Musharraf? Does fighting terrorism justify propping up an undemocratic regime? All week, Brian Katulis and Lisa Curtis debate the U.S. alliance with Pakistan.
Brian, I agree that the U.S. fixation on supporting individual
undemocratic leaders in Muslim nations has contributed in some
cases to strengthening Islamist extremist movements. In Pakistan,
we have an opportunity to help turn the situation around and get
U.S. policy right.
But the Bush administration must be willing to listen to Pakistani
civilian leaders and to distance itself from Musharraf when he
seeks to silence those leaders. The U.S. can help usher in a new
civilian-led government while still retaining close ties to the
Pakistani military, which is now led by Gen. Ashfaq Kiani,
reportedly a professional soldier with little interest in
politics.
A fair and transparent election in Pakistan will almost certainly
make the country more stable. One of the mainstream secular parties
would likely win the most seats and form a government. There is
almost no chance that the religious parties, polling nationally at
only about 5%, will make any substantial gains similar to Hamas in
the Palestinian territories.
Moreover, a popularly elected civilian government could rebuild
public support for fighting terrorism. As it stands now,
Musharraf's plummeting popularity and his close association with
U.S. counter-terrorism policies is translating into a general lack
of support for fighting terrorism, even though it is in Pakistan's
own national security interest.
But the way to promote democracy is not by cutting or conditioning
assistance to the military. Doing so would lead Pakistani military
officials to view the U.S. as an untrustworthy, fickle partner;
demoralize the Pakistani army and jeopardize our ability to
cooperate closely on counter-terrorism. The U.S. lost valuable
leverage with Pakistan when it abruptly cut off aid in the early
1990s because of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Cutting or
conditioning aid fuels the perception that Pakistan is taking
action to fight terrorism under U.S. coercion rather than to
protect its own citizens.
We should remember that the U.S. has benefited directly from the
partnership it has built with Pakistan over the last six years
through the provision of $10 billion in economic and military aid.
Pakistan has captured and turned over to the U.S. senior Al Qaeda
leaders and helped thwart several major terrorist attacks.
Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terrorism may have helped save
hundreds, possibly thousands, of American lives.
U.S. military-assistance programs have also helped keep Pakistan's
nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Recent media
reports reveal that the U.S. and Pakistan have been cooperating
over the last six years to ensure the security of Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal. If it weren't for the Bush administration's
careful nurturing of the relationship and provision of military
assistance to Pakistan, we would not have been able to build the
trust necessary to cooperate on nuclear safety issues.
Washington should continue its economic and military assistance
programs to Pakistan. But it can improve the way it monitors and
leverages this aid. Brian, you rightly emphasize the recent
decision by the Bush administration to direct $200 million in
annual aid to USAID projects rather than provide the funds directly
to the Musharraf government, which marks a significant improvement
in how the U.S. delivers and administers aid in Pakistan.
The way to promote a democratic Pakistan is to back open elections
(which provide the best antidote to extremism), publicly criticize
the Musharraf regime when it seeks to undermine the democratic
process and engage closely with civilian politicians.
Lisa Curtis is a
senior research fellow in the Asian Studies Center.
First appeared in the LA Times, "Dust Up" debate