|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere |
| September 6, 2002
SOUTH ASIA: CONFLICTING VIEWS ON U.S. INVOLVEMENT KEY FINDINGS
|
September 6, 2002
SOUTH ASIA: CONFLICTING VIEWS ON U.S. INVOLVEMENT
KEY FINDINGS
*** Indian, German and Canadian papers saw a disconnect between the U.S.'s pro-democracy rhetoric and its silence as President Musharraf flouts democratic principles.
*** Most Pakistani editorialists called for expanded U.S. engagement on Kashmir, while their Indian counterparts were wary of the U.S. becoming a South Asian peace broker.
*** Editorials from both sides of the LoC concluded that visits by VIPs like Deputy Secretary Armitage are producing "diminishing returns."
MAJOR THEMES
U.S. outspoken on democracy in Iraq, but tolerant of Musharraf's 'autocracy' Indian editiorialists were unanimous in denouncing what they saw as the U.S.'s hypocritical stance on democracy. The nationalist Rashtriya Sahara asserted that U.S. policy towards Saddam is "farcical in the face of its silence on Musharraf's unbridled tyranny." Even some Pakistani papers saw a disconnect. The second largest Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt complained: "Despite the fact that the U.S. declares itself a pro-democracy country, it has never let democracy take root in Pakistan." Several writers saw the Bush administration downplaying the Musharraf/democracy contradiction at its own peril. Calcutta's pro-BJP Bartaman cautioned: "The U.S. will have to pay the price for this blindness one day." Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine warned that the U.S. is playing a "high risk game" by courting Musharraf, while the Canadian Globe and Mail outlined the danger that U.S. support for "autocracies" like Musharraf's presents to its security.
Pakistani media call for U.S. to focus on Kashmir; Indian writers warn against aligning with U.S. While Pakistani editorialists found U.S. efforts to encourage a Kashmir dialogue "praiseworthy," they urged Washington to "do more" to "help its friend" [Pakistan]. The center-right, Nation warned that peace in the region is contingent upon U.S. efforts to secure "a just solution of the Kashmir issue," while mass circulation Jang pleaded with the U.S. to "pressurize" India with "complete honesty and seriousness." Indian writers warned against New Delhi's aligning too closely with Washington as both nations countered terrorist threats. They argued that American lenience towards Musharraf increased the perception among Indian leadership that "the U.S. is unmindful of Indian interests in the current war against terrorism." Reflecting general disappointment with the fruits of U.S.-Pakistan anti-terror cooperation, the centrist Hindu concluded that India's reliance on the U.S. "has clearly run its course." Writers from both countries generally saw Deputy Secretary Armitage's recent visit to the region as failing to achieve "positive results."
Editor: James Iovino
Editor's note: This analysis is based on 35 reports from 6 countries, August 17-September 5. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
INDIA: "India And The U.S.: A New Maturity?"
Former foreign secretary J.N. Dixit opined in the centrist Indian Express (9/5): "There is a general disappointment and rising criticism in India about the U.S. not being sensitive and supportive about Indian concerns regarding Pakistan.... Indian interlocutors, particularly National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, clearly conveyed India's disappointments with the U.S. for not taking a firm stance against Pakistan's subversive approach in J&K. In response, Armitage stoutly maintained that Musharraf is committed to fulfilling his promises to the U.S. about withdrawing support to terrorist activities in India. Secondly, he said he would again urge Musharraf to speed up the fulfillment of his promises.... The substance and atmospherics of the Armitage visit have served the purpose of nudging both governments to undertake a reality check on Indo-U.S. relations. India should ensure that this emerging realism adds maturity to the consolidation of Indo-U.S. relations. This process should not be disrupted by the dips and turns in Indian public opinion."
"Pervez's Poll"
The centrist Indian Express opined (9/3): "The trouble, of course, is that General Musharraf wants to eat his democratic cake and have it too.... The General would like to ensure that he himself remains Pakistan's man for all seasons. It is this ambition that casts a long shadow on the credibility of the October elections in Pakistan.... Why, then, this elaborate attempt to prove the nation's democratic credentials by military sleight of hand? Let's just say that the general purpose is to make Pakistan more acceptable to the West --especially the U.S., which is keen to ensure that its protege conducts itself in a manner that is in tune with the norms of the 'civilized world'. But the General and his compatriots know that this is essentially an exercise in window dressing.... With a democracy like this, who needs a dictatorship?"
"Pakistan's New Strategy"
Nationalist Rashtriya Sahara editorialized (9/3): "The U.S. concern for the subversion of popular democracy in Iraq seems farcical in the face of its silence on Musharraf's unbridled tyranny in Pakistan. The American people very well understand what's going on, and will not pardon the Bush Administration for its double game. Musharraf has himself expressed his failure in checking infiltration. He might have to face embarassment when he faces the UN Assembly. As a diversionary tactic, he will put the ball in India's court and pretend to be committed to the resolution of the Kashmir problem. This is Islamabad's new strategy to divert the world's attention from Pak-sponsored terrorism."
"The Policy Is Still Foreign"
Former foreign secretary S. Nihal Singh commented in the centrist Asian Age (8/29): "Notably, the frequent visits of senior U.S. officials to the two ports of call, New Delhi and Islamabad, are beginning to pall.... Cultivating neighbors, particularly after President Musharraf's recent high-profile visits to India's periphery, does not negate New Delhi's desire to cultivate close relations with Washington, but is an indication of the new nuanced, less America-centric, approach.... For instance, Mr. Sinha's recent interaction with Arab ambassadors spelled out India's opposition to a possible, if not probable, American-launched military attack on Iraq. There are other obvious areas of differences such as over the hostile U.S. approach to Iran. As the Bush administration is elaborating its policies in relation to West Asia and elsewhere and the unmistakable unilateralist streak it is displaying, India's interests are with the rest of the world, rather than with Washington.... It is no one's argument that a strong Indo-U.S. relationship should not be an important pillar of Indian policy.... But too close an alignment with the United States would hurt India because such a relationship would negate the very basis of the country's nationhood and independence."
"Differential Calculus"
Security affairs analyst for center for policy research Brahma Chellaney noted in the nationalist Hindustan Times (8/28): "If democracy is good (and necessary) for Iraqis, why isn't it so for Pakistanis? If the U.S. really wants regional peace and stability, it cannot forget that every Pakistani military ruler has waged war with India and that the only occasions when the two neighbors have come close to peace have been during the short periods of democratic rule in Islamabad.... The Bush team wants to practice a policy of preemptive war to protect U.S. interests, but when it comes to India it applies a different standard by trying to actively dissuade New Delhi from striking preemptively or even in reprisal to major State-sponsored terrorist attacks.... While carving out a role for itself in managing the India-Pakistan conflict and relationship, including the Kashmir issue, Washington has sought to keep both New Delhi and Islamabad happy with carefully crafted statements that regional analysts vie to interpret as support to their country's official position. But the latest subcontinental tours of Colin Powell and Richard Armitage have served as a reminder that there are limits to such a balancing act and that these visits are yielding diminishing returns."
"Towards A Common Understanding"
The centrist Hindu opined (8/27): "India, Pakistan and the U.S. administration appear to be moving towards a common understanding of the elements that constitute the phenomenon of cross-border terrorism in the current context.... New Delhi now appears to have taken on board the perspective that terrorism emanating from the Pakistan side of the LoC is not solely a state-sponsored affair.... A tendency within the Indian foreign policy establishment has hinted at its disappointment that Mr. Armitage would not convey a stronger message to Islamabad.... The approach taken thus far of relying on Washington to press India's demands on and derive promises from Pakistan has clearly run its course."
"U.S. Goes Soft On Musharraf Autocracy"
Washington-based diplomatic editor K.P. Nayar stated in the centrist Telegraph (8/26): "The tail wagged the dog. General Pervez Musharraf assumed sweeping powers...and extended his term in office after cleverly calculating that the Americans would do nothing to undermine him on the eve of a crucial diplomatic mission by Richard Armitage. And he was proved right. In less than 12 hours after the General drove the proverbial last nail into the coffin of Pakistani democracy, President George W. Bush praised Musharraf. It is reliably learnt that the U.S. State Department was told to dilute its criticism of Musharraf on the day he arbitrarily acquired the constitutional right to dissolve an elected parliament and appoint judges. But it was watered down because Washington wanted to avoid any controversy in Islamabad similar to the furore in India after Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement on Kashmir in New Delhi last month. In the most mealy-mouthed comment heard from any U.S. administration on the suppression of democracy since the collapse of Communism, Bush, however, said American officials will make sure that Musharraf is aware of the importance of restoring civilian rule.... By last week's antics, Musharraf may have crossed the biggest hurdle in Consolidating his power, knowing that the absence of harsh American criticism would have a similar ripple effect elsewhere in the world."
"Bush Opines Musharraf Is No Sinner"
Pro-BJP Calcutta-based, Bengali-language Bartaman commented (8/26): "Saddam Hussein is a felon because he has taken initiatives to build weapons of mass destruction. But Pervez Musharaff is innocent, even though he is increasingly filling up his armory with sophisticated nuclear armaments. President Bush would be spending sleepless nights until and unless he gets rid of Saddam Hussein. Intriguingly, the same Bush is determined to ensure that Musharraf holds onto his power. The U.S. once supported the Taliban. It is now following the same blind policy in case of Musharraf. The Bush Administration is aware that both the Taliban and al Queda have taken shelter in Pakistan. Maybe, bin Laden is also in Pakistan. Still they are the pillars of the war against terrorism. The U.S. will have to pay the price for this blindness one day."
"Arms And Mr. Armitage"
The pro-economic-reforms Financial Express commented (8/23): "The visit this week of Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, to India and Pakistan comes at a time when President Musharraf has removed any lingering doubts that anyone may have had about the political dispensation within Pakistan.... It is now clear that whatever elections are held in Pakistan later this year would only be a whitewash exercise aimed at proclaiming that the country is back to being a democracy and cannot be regarded as a non-democratic state. This is laughable and Armitage must not mince words in saying so.... Hopefully, Armitage will take these views into account before holding forth, like his boss General Colin Powell did, on the role of foreign monitors in the J&K elections.... Armitage should also address Indian concerns about the renewal of arms sales to Pakistan, especially of F-16 jets which are capable of delivering nuclear payloads.... It is bad enough that the U.S. continues to ignore Chinese nuclear proliferation into Pakistan, it is worse that it remained silent in the face of Pakistani nuclear blackmail and initially subjected both the blackmailer and the target of blackmail to similar sanctions.... Finally, if the U.S. is serious about promoting bilateral economic cooperation with India, it must terminate the existing controls on export of hi-tech and dual-use technologies. Armitage's visit can be more purposeful than Powell's was if it comes to grips with these issues at hand."
"Gujarat Burden On Armitage"
Washington-based diplomatic editor K.P. Nayar argued in the centrist Telegraph (8/23): "Clearly, it is important that the U.S. speak out publicly against...religion-based extremist violence, all the more so in view of our country's war on terrorism.... But it is clear that Armitage will be in a quandary when he is in India. If he makes a public statement anywhere on the lines of what the panel wants, he will be criticized in India, where memories of Powell's remarks about Kashmir and election observers are still fresh. If he does not, he will face the wrath of powerful religious interests here when he returns home. If Armitage raises Gujarat privately during his talks in New Delhi, he will be politely told to mind his business. Especially in view of the growing perception among the Indian leadership that the U.S. is unmindful of Indian interests in the current war against terrorism."
"Pak Shadow Looms Over Indo-U.S. Ties"
The pro-economic reform Business Standard opined (8/17): "India and the U.S. emphasized their growing alignment of interests in a new phase of the Track 2 dialogue between the two countries last week, but Pakistan continues to cast a shadow on bilateral ties, and the possible supply of F-16 fighter-bomber aircraft to Pakistan could threaten the growing entente. The second issue that came into focus was the U.S. frustration over India's stand on multilateral trade negotiations.... The buzzwords through the four days of meetings in the two cities were 'strategic relationship' and 'strategic opportunities,' and the U.S.' desire to build a relationship with India that is outside of the India-Pakistan straitjacket. With U.S. representatives repeatedly emphasizing the new view of India that has been encouraged by the Bush administration, it became clear that the whole enterprise would be torpedoed if the U.S. goes ahead and supplies F-16s to Pakistan.... The most engaging debate was on trade policy, where U.S. officials expressed puzzlement over what they saw as India's extreme negotiating position, and argued that there was a contradiction between India's trade policy and the country's reform program as well as its economic situation."
PAKISTAN: "The U.S. Visit"
The centrist, national News commented (9/5): "The current re-alliance cannot be seen as honorable or durable until both partners are seen as benefiting from it.... Whatever little has been offered by way of a quid pro quo for the support against the former Afghan regime has been a drop of water on parched sand. There has neither been a debt write-off, or even a debt-swap, nor greater market access for Pakistani products. The U.S. has failed also to prevail upon India to pull back its troops and remains reluctant even to sell the much-needed F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, which alone could deter any Indian adventurism. Pakistani opinion is aggrieved also of the U.S. dilly-dallying on the festering Kashmir issue."
"Musharraf's U.S. Agenda"
Islamabad's rightist English-language Pakistan Observer asserted (9/5): "The fact is that the people are quite jittery over the unfair treatment meted out to Pakistan and Pakistanis in the wake of September 11, despite being a front-line State and having endured the consequence of the unprecedented U.S. military and aerial operations in Afghanistan. It is, therefore, hoped that this will be the core of the President's agenda in the United States. Bush will hopefully be mindful that mere flattery of a leader cannot address genuine grievances of a nation."
"Can The U.S. Deliver On Kashmir?"
Ijaz Hussain opined in the Lahore-based Daily Times (9/4): "Pakistan will have to be most resourceful and astute in its diplomacy. We need to realize that this is a rare opportunity for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute, perhaps the last one of its kind. Could Pakistan that was asked throughout the summer 'to do more' to stop 'cross-border terrorism' now turn the tables on India by getting the U.S. fully involved in the settlement of the Kashmir dispute? In the months to come Pakistan diplomacy will be on trial on this count."
"Bush: Dance Partner Of Dictators"
Second largest Nawa-e-Waqt editorialized (9/3): "It has become a tradition that whenever the U.S. has to take some action anywhere in the world, it considers even the dictatorships a blessing for its own benefit. It imposes dictators and ousts the democratic setup, if democracy is settled there. Despite the fact that the U.S. declares itself a pro-democracy country, it has never let democracy take roots in Pakistan.... After his recent visit to South Asia, U.S. Vice Secretary of State Armitage, in a television interview, has emphasized much in support of General Musharraf. He has categorically said that 'we completely trust Musharraf'. In other words, they have trust in Musharraf, not in Pakistan. This is a bitter reality that the Americans love democratic values and human rights, but their rulers not only trample human rights, but also support the violators of these rights. Israel is the living example of this fact. Pulverizing Afghanistan without any evidence and bombing Iraq also show the duality of the U.S. Had democracy had strong foundations in Pakistan, America would not have succeeded in destroying Afghanistan. American newspapers should also criticize their government for its open terrorism in Afghanistan and supporting Israel in Palestine and India in Kashmir. But they would not do that because they are being invested with Jewish finances."
"APHC-Delhi Talks"
The centrist, national News argued (8/30): "United States efforts to salvage the Kashmir election when it is already a lost cause are a surprise development. Its officials have been frequently visiting Srinagar exhorting the Kashmiri leaders to join the bandwagon without any success. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, too, failed when he made a similar appeal to Islamabad. It is not clear on the basis of what assumption has the U.S. jumped into the fray, because its words and deeds so far betray a grave lack of understanding of the historical factors behind the opposition to the polls. The elections are not the issue at stake, but the fact that India is using the democratic exercise to deny the Kashmiris their right of self-determination. Polls are its strategy of camouflaging a blatant lie."
"Peace Moves?"
The center-right national Nation opined (8/29): "All this hectic U.S. diplomacy and Washington's professed concern for peace is in sharp contrast to New Delhi's arrogant refusal either to de-escalate or engage in talks with Pakistan, even for defusing the situation.... There are ominous signs that Washington is keen to extend its 'war against terrorism' to Pakistani soil, while the Indian troops stay mobilized on our eastern border. Instead of allowing itself to be lulled, Pakistan should seek recourse to the UN, which remains seized of the Kashmir dispute, aside from staying engaged in these 'peace' moves. We don't have many options left, anyway."
"Diplomatic Victory For Pakistan"
Harunur Rashid asserted in Islamabad's rightist English-language Pakistan Observer (8/29): "It seems that at present, the U.S. desperately needs Pakistan as one of the key front-line States from where the war on terrorism in Afghanistan is being carried out. In other words, Pakistan seems to be gaining weight in strategic terms with the U.S. However, that does not mean that the U.S. does not need close relations with India. In fact, the U.S. needs both India and Pakistan for strategic reasons."
"Helping A Friend"
Husain Haqqani noted in the center-right, national Nation (8/28): "Greater U.S.activism in promoting democracy in Pakistan will help Pakistan achieve a degree of political maturity and stability. It will also help avoid the anti-American backlash that has characterized every round of close ties with Pakistan in the past. The credibility of the October election will depend on the findings of international observers monitoring them. The European Union and the Commonwealth will be sending election observer missions. It is crucial that the poll monitors should not limit themselves to officially guided tours. They should also examine and question the overall environment in which the elections are being held. Efforts to deny mainstream political parties and leaders the right to contest should not be condoned. If they are, Pakistan will end up with another round of parallel power centers. Civilian governments that simply act as a front for the military's decisions are not what Pakistan needs to emerge from its difficulties."
"Armitage And After"
The centrist, national News opined (8/27): "Mr. Armitage, you speak India's language when you press Pakistan to do New Delhi's bidding. You say that Pakistan is sincere in its promise to end infiltration but then you add: 'There is some obvious infiltration, across the Line of Control.' And this is how you portray Pakistan's position: 'I think that no one here in Pakistan or in India feels that the government of Pakistan is solely and completely responsible for activities across the border.' The catch in your statement is that the responsibility does rest with Pakistan, but not completely. This needs to be read in the light of Musharraf's' recent statement that some infiltration might he going on, on the part of some ardent sympathizers, but the government of Pakistan is not involved. If the millions of Indian troops stationed on the Line of Control can't stop them, how does New Delhi expect that Pakistan could do so fully and satisfactorily?"
"Armitage's Optimism Vs Ground Reality"
The Lahore-based Daily Times asserted (8/27): "Both India and Pakistan have chosen to put cold water on the observation of visiting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that tensions have eased between the two countries in the past two months. In Pakistan, Mr. Armitage had spoken of U.S. efforts to get the two countries to the negotiating table, implying things may have moved forward enough for Washington to feel optimistic. If there is no reason for undue optimism, there is also no reason for undue pessimism. The American pressure on India, unlike its more direct involvement with Pakistan, is subtle and multifaceted. The last time India was in an unduly aggressive mood vis-a-vis Pakistan, it only required an 'advisory' from the U.S. State Department warning of war for over 100,000 foreigners, mostly westerners, to pack their bags and quit India, leaving the multinationals and IT villages in India in the lurch. The 'foreigners' are returning to India, to be sure, and the business contracts are being revived, but India will have to think many times before embarking upon any serious adventure with Pakistan."
"Armitage's Visit"
The center-right, national Nation opined (8/26): "On the face of it, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's second visit to India and Pakistan in as many months, sandwiching trips by Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, was more cordial in Islamabad than in New Delhi.... The contents of Mr. Armitage's wide-ranging talks were not disclosed in their entirety, but it is virtually certain that there were preliminaries about General Musharraf's visit to the U.S. next, where Mr. Vajpayee would also be present. Mr. Armitage's reference to the U.S. role in facilitating Pakistan and India to get back to the negotiating table did not indicate any fresh development. But it is Indian recalcitrance that has to be overcome, and if the U.S. wishes a stable peace in the region, then talks must lead to a just solution of the Kashmir issue, and not impose the Indian wish list on Pakistan and the Kashmiris merely because India is the flavor of the month in Washington."
"Unproductive Visit"
Islamabad's rightist English-language, Pakistan Observer commented (8/26): "The visit of the U.S. Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the South Asian region aimed at de-escalating tension between Pakistan and India seems to have gone without achieving any positive results. The cold-shouldered reception he received in New Delhi is a testimony to the fact that India is not interested in any more U.S. involvement in the region.... It is strange that Pakistan has gone to the extreme end to create conditions for de-escalation and resumption of dialogue, but the world community has failed to apply the required pressure to impress upon New Delhi to reciprocate. There is no point in building hopes by paying high profile visits that turn out to be mere hoax."
"Pak-India Talks: America Should Be Honestly Serious"
Mass circulation Jang argued (8/26): "The seriousness which America demonstrated two months ago to stop Indian aggression and Indo-Pak war was mainly because of the need of the security of its own forces present in and around Afghanistan. If the U.S. really wants everlasting peace in the Subcontinent, then it should pressurize India using all its influence with complete honesty and seriousness to withdraw its forces from Pakistani borders and start negotiations with Pakistan to solve all issues, including Kashmir."
"U.S. Interest In Subcontinent Integrity"
The pro-Muslim League Pakistan opined (8/26): "U.S. efforts to reduce tension in the subcontinent are praiseworthy, but they have not brought about any change in the situation.... It is said that time will tell about the truth of the Indian Air force bombing and that it is not the job of America to decide about the ground realities but on the other hand it does not hesitate to accept the Indian allegation that infiltration still continues. It is sad to note the American silence over cruelties of oppressive forces and human rights violations. This is the duty of America and its allied western powers to bring India on the right track for an everlasting peace in the Subcontinent."
"Do More"
The center-right, national Nation argued (8/26): "The Pakistan government has gone out on a limb for the USA, but the reciprocation has not been as adequate as initially expected. While there is still debate within Pakistan on whether the government did the right thing on September 11, there is a consensus that the U.S. has not done enough."
"Indian Attack--Consequences And Implications"
Second largest Urdu daily Nawa-i-Waqt observed (8/25): "After fierce fighting, the Pakistan Army has not only frustated an attack by Indian troops on its solitary check post in northern Kashmir but it has also inflicted dozens of casualties upon the enemy.... At a time when the United States is expected to use its influence to reduce tension between India and Pakistan, and while U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage is actually visiting the Subcontinent, this act of India is, if not inapprehensible, then certainly regrettable and dangerous. In the past too, whenever some foreign dignitary came to the region, India would resort to such acts, further increasing the tension, and taking both countries to the brink of war.... Even before Mr. Armitage's arrival in the region, India had already expressed its annoyance with his visit and Prime Minister Vajpayee declined to meet him when he visited New Delhi. In doing so, India was sending a message that it wanted to keep the United States at bay from the mutual affairs between India and Pakistan.... Thank God that Pakistan is fully capable of defending itself and driving back the enemy. However, the latest attack should dispel the impression that the situation is normal and that tension between the two countries is subsiding through the efforts of the United States.... Only a united and coherent Pakistani nation can foil the conspiracies of India. God may turn the latest incident into a source for strengthening our national cohesion and this cohesion should prove helpful in frustrating the Indian designs."
"Armitage Visit To Focus On Pak-India Ties"
The Karachi-based, centrist News asserted (8/22): "The government has said it is unaware of any proposals that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage will be bringing to Islamabad on Saturday, but the basic thrust of the meetings with him will focus on relations between Pakistan and India."
"If Bush Comes To Shove"
Mahir Ali contended in the Karachi-based, independent, national Dawn (8/21): "Pakistan would do well to steer completely clear of the coming firestorm. It may not be a simple task in view of Islamabad's entanglement with American strategic goals in the Afghan context, and its determination to keep the U.S. on side in the conflict with India. But a declaration of independence--perhaps a suitable subtle one--is the only respectable option. The alternative would be an abiding sense of guilt and shame, an indelible stain on the national conscience. It's not a price worth paying--not for aligning ourselves with what is indisputably an indefensible cause."
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Undeclared War"
The conservative Times declared (8/23): "Lal Krishna Advani, the Indian Deputy Prime Minister, is widely seen as the driving force behind India's BJP-led coalition Government, the man who has taken the hardest line over Kashmir and the mouthpiece of Hindu nationalism.... He and his Government have grasped that the American role is crucial and that the Bush Administration is acting in good faith and with good intentions--a far cry from the Cold War stereotype of the United States that used to dominate Indian politicians of his generation."
GERMANY: "Friends"
Center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine commented (8/24): "The United States had to object to Musharraf's constitutional changes. On the other hand, matters of principle have not been much of a focus in the fight against terror.... Lately, however, there have been public statements that strike a different note. Some Americans are beginning to realize what kinds of friends the country has chosen. The United States has criticized Saudi Arabia and threatened Egypt with financial sanctions. The United States is playing a high-risk game. If it permanently supports undemocratic and/or corrupt regimes, things may turn out as they did in Iran. If, on the other hand, the United States purposely weakens an ally, it may help those forces to power it is trying to fight. No policy is without risk."
"The General's Constitution"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau maintained (8/24): "What does Washington do in reaction to Musharraf's dictatorial move? President Bush praises Musharraf as a reliable ally in the war against terror. The State Department carefully alludes to the fact that the general's unconstitutional step could make the growth of democratic institutions in Pakistan 'a bit more difficult.' Of course, it was not necessary to cancel Pakistan's debt restructuring program in order to put pressure on Musharraf--only the poor would have been affected by such a step. And an official reprimand of Musharraf also would not have helped anyone. However, the United States could have chosen other words and deeds to condemn the general's behavior. Once again the United States ranks stability above democracy. In this manner, the United States conducts the fight against Al Qaida with the same policy that has made Pakistan and Afghanistan such fertile ground for Islamism over the past twenty years."
East Asia/ Pacific
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "Wrong Approach"
The independent English-language South China Morning Post opined (8/24): "General Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup in October 2000 and eight months later declared himself president, announced constitutional changes on Wednesday that gave him the power to dismiss an elected parliament. It also establishes a National Security Council comprising four military chiefs and eight civilian politicians, which will oversee government and 'foreign policy decisions and national issues.' The response from the U.S., Britain and their allies in the war on terrorism has been far from critical. U.S. President George W. Bush expressed concern, but his comments fell far short of condemnation.... The U.S. war on terrorism is muddying the waters and ensuring Pakistan remains a dictatorship. Remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taleban remain loose in neighboring Afghanistan and Pakistan's co-operation is crucial to their capture. Washington's decision yesterday to consolidate and restructure US$3 billion (HK$23.4 billion) in debt sends the wrong message. The war on terror means nations must walk a diplomatic tight-rope when dealing with Pakistan. They should be using economic incentives as rewards to guarantee genuine democratic reforms."
Western Hemisphere
CANADA: "Embracing Pakistan's Dictator"
Columnist Marcus Gee commented in the leading Globe and Mail (8/24): "It is understandable that Washington should be grateful to Gen. Musharraf. He gave badly needed logistical support to the Americans when they attacked the al-Qaeda terrorist network in neighbouring Afghanistan, and he cut Pakistan's ties to the Taliban regime there. He has also taken steps to crack down on Islamic extremists in Pakistan. But the United States is doing Pakistan no favours by holding its tongue as the general stomps on Pakistani democracy. And it is not helping its own cause. One of the reasons that extremism thrives in some Islamic countries is that autocracies such as Gen. Musharraf's leave no outlet for peaceful dissent. With no way to express themselves democratically, frustrated people often turn to violence. Yes, terrorism must be fought, by military means if necessary. But if the United States wants to win over the long haul, it must show people in the Islamic world that there is an alternative to futile lashing out. In the war against terrorism, democracy is the best weapon. When power-hungry despots such as Gen. Musharraf stand in the way, the United States and its allies should let them know it, no matter how helpful they may have been."
"Musharraf's Power Play"
The leading Globe and Mail opined (8/23): "There is more than a little irony in the notion that the United States, in attempting to bring democracy to Afghanistan, is supporting an antidemocratic regime in Pakistan. But this contradiction in U.S. foreign policy is nothing new. Whereas the United States was willing to support any dictator who would stand in the way of communists during the Cold War, it has so far shown it is willing to support dictators who will stand in the way of terrorists during the war on terrorism. Rather than turn a blind eye to Gen. Musharraf's antidemocratic ways, the Bush administration should seize this rare opportunity to use its friendship and influence to instill democratic values in Pakistan. While its war on terrorism is an important one, so too is standing up for democracy wherever it is threatened."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
