|
Pakistan called a 'crucible of jihadi culture'
Pakistan has been described as a nuclear-armed crucible of jihadi culture, exporting terrorists and destabilising its neighbours.According to Professor Vali Nasr of the Naval Postgraduate School, writing on Friday in the Christian Science Monitor, For too long, Washington has coddled the Pakistani general, turned a blind eye to his crushing of democracy, and read too much into his pro-West rhetoric. The US must change course. And there are signs its about to. After almost a decade under Musharrafs rule, Pakistan hasnt changed much. He has initiated reforms and revamped the economy. But where he was expected to do most, fighting Islamic extremism, Pakistans record is most disappointing. Nasr maintains that Al Qaeda and the Taliban use Pakistani soil as a haven and training ground. Recent deals between the government and Pashtun tribes have in effect ceded the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies. Musharraf speaks of enlightened moderation, but he has done more to pulverise secular democratic parties than contain Islamist ones, he argues. He believes that Pakistan only catches foreign jihadis when pressured by the West. It bans extremist groups that get out of hand, but it has been reluctant to uproot the infrastructure of extremism. Extremist groups proliferate and operate in the open because General Musharraf finds them useful in convincing Washington and Pakistans middle classes that the military is all that protects the country from a Taliban-like Islamic state. Nasr is of the view that the Pakistani government was fully aware of what went on in Lal Masjid, yet chose to ignore the extremists between January and June, even as they sought to impose Islamic law on the capital. It was not until General Musharraf sensed public anger at his dithering and confronted a diplomatic crisis when the extremists abducted Chinese nationals, that he stormed the mosque. Frustrated with developments in Pakistan, many in Washington look to elections and a civilian government for solutions. Democracy should be welcomed, but it will change little. The last time there was a transfer of power to a civilian government, in 1988, the military still chose the foreign minister and informed the prime minister that it would control the nuclear programme, intelligence, security, and policies toward Afghanistan and India. This time, too, the military will continue to call the shots - especially when it comes to Afghanistan. According to Nasr, In dealing with Pakistan, Washington has preferred to see the logic of the war on terror as self-evident, not recognising that even close allies will not cooperate if it does not serve their interests. It is only by addressing Pakistans interests that Washington can secure greater cooperation from Islamabad. Washington cannot give Pakistan the sphere of influence in southern Afghanistan that it desires to make sure it will not be encircled by India. However, Washington can give Pakistan greater interest in Afghanistans stability than it has now by encouraging Kabul to include Pakistans allies and clients in government; and more important, to finally recognise its international border with Pakistan. Posted by: Fred 2007-07-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=194078 |