Muslims For A Safe America

Pakistani President/General Pervez Musharraf declared a “state of emergency” in November 2007, suspending the constitution, prohibiting public rallies, shutting down independent television stations, replacing Supreme Court justices who challenged his authority, and detaining political opponents and thousands of protesters.

The U.S. government, which has given Pakistan billions of dollars in military aid to support American military operations in Afghanistan since 9/11, has called on Musharraf to end the state of emergency and move towards democracy and the “rule of law.”

Under international pressure, Musharraf has agreed to hold parliamentary elections in early 2008, but he has not agreed to end the crackdown on the judiciary, the press, and political opponents.

If the “rule of law” is fully re-established, the removed Pakistani Supreme Court justices will be reinstated, and they will probably invalidate Musharraf’s recent presidential election victory, removing him from the presidency.

If the “rule of law” is partially re-established, the new Pakistani Supreme Court justices will remain on the bench, and they will validate Musharraf’s recent presidential election victory, allowing him to serve as president.

Either way, parliamentary elections will be held, and Pakistanis will elect either Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan’s two most prominent politicians) as prime minister.

America, which has prioritized the “War on Terror” since 9/11, must decide how hard to push for the full restoration of the “rule of law” in Pakistan. Should America push for full restoration of the “rule of law” (including restoration of the old Supreme Court, which would lead to Musharraf’s removal as president)? Or, if that’s too risky, should America seek limited restoration of the “rule of law” (i.e. free and fair parliamentary elections without restoration of the Supreme Court, allowing Musharraf to remain as president)?

In light of American power and influence, many grassroots Pakistanis and many Muslims around the world believe that American pressure will impact the outcome in Pakistan.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Promote Full Restoration Of The “Rule Of Law” In Pakistan (Which Would Lead To Musharraf’s Removal As President)

1. Musharraf is not an asset for America in the “War on Terror.” He has been unsuccessful in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which have been defeating Musharraf’s Pakistan Army in northwestern Pakistan, near the Pakistan-Afghan border. In fact, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have gotten stronger on Musharraf’s watch. In 2006, Musharraf agreed to a cease-fire which allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup and re-establish training camps to prepare for attacks against American targets. Musharraf also agreed to free captured Taliban who had allegedly been involved in planning suicide bombings against Pakistani targets, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Pakistani troops captured by the Taliban. Keep in mind that Musharraf’s government was one of only three governments around the world that had diplomatic relations with the Taliban in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (until 9/11).

2. Pakistan’s two most popular political parties, Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Sharif, have committed to fighting against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. After free and fair elections, one of these parties will come to power (or they will come to power together). These parties will have no choice but to support America’s “War on Terror” if they want American military aid (and other benefits) to continue.

3. The Pakistan Army is Pakistan’s most powerful institution. Segments of the Pakistan Army are becoming dissatisfied with Musharraf, in light of the Army’s casualties in the “War on Terror” and in light of Musharraf’s crackdown on civil liberties. So the Army may favor a change in Pakistan’s leadership.

4. If America doesn’t promote the full restoration of the “rule of law,” that will further damage America’s relationship with the Muslim world. First, grassroots Pakistanis will turn against America. They will blame America for Musharraf’s ability to stay in power and his ability to deny them “the rule of law,” the same way the Iranian people turned against America in the 1970s because of America’s support for the dictatorial Shah. Second, grassroots Muslims around the world will become more convinced that America doesn’t really care about the “rule of law” or about what happens to the average Muslim, as long as America’s own objectives are met.

Arguments By Those Who Believe That America Should Promote Partial Restoration Of The “Rule Of Law” In Pakistan (Which Would Lead To Musharraf Staying In Power As President)

1. Musharraf is an asset for America in the “War on Terror.” Since 9/11, Musharraf’s Pakistan Army has helped America capture key Al Qaeda leaders, and Pakistani soldiers have made a serious effort to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

2. A completely civilian Pakistani government may not be a reliable American ally in the “War on Terror.” Many grassroots Pakistanis believe that America’s “War on Terror” is not in the best interests of the Pakistani people; civilian rulers, who might be more responsive to the people than Musharraf is, may be less willing to continue the fight. Civilian rulers may decide that Pakistani soldiers don’t need to die just because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are making a comeback; after all, Al Qaeda attacked America, not Pakistan, on 9/11. Keep in mind that Pakistan’s civilian government was one of only three governments around the world that had diplomatic relations with the Taliban in the 1990s. (Pakistan’s democratically-elected leaders have not always gone along with America. For example, Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons under civilian governments in the 1990s, despite American opposition.)

3. The Pakistan Army is Pakistan’s most powerful institution. Military leaders may oppose a return to civilian rule, especially if they believe that the main civilian alternatives are corrupt and unconcerned about the welfare of the Pakistani people. (Keep in mind, the Army has repeatedly overthrown Pakistan’s elected leaders.) If Musharraf is weakened, other generals may take over Pakistan (and its nuclear weapons), and they may be unfriendly to America.

4. It’s more important for America to have a reliable ally ruling Pakistan, than for America to be popular with average Pakistanis or average Muslims around the world. Anyways, America does not need to rock the boat, because things will sort themselves out in Pakistan. The new Supreme Court will validate Musharraf’s presidential election victory. Then Musharraf will be comfortable lifting restrictions on the press and political opponents. New parliamentary elections will be held, and a new prime minister will be selected. The Pakistani people will go back to their lives. Over time, Pakistanis and other Muslims around the world will forget about this “state of emergency.” And Musharraf’s Pakistan Army will continue to support America’s “War on Terror.”