Monday, March 01, 2004
General diplomacy
I have always suspect that one of the reasons for the inexplicable coziness between Pakistan and the United States currently is the general-to-general relationship between Colin Powell and Pervez Musharraf. This New York Times article apears to confirm this.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has talked on the phone at least 81 times with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, often when the United States is demanding something. There are times when the two men slip into "general to general" mode.
One such exchange, State Department officials said, occurred in mid-2002, when India and Pakistan were massing troops and engaging in alarming "chatter" about resorting to nuclear weapons. According to those officials, Mr. Powell phoned Mr. Musharraf but addressed him not as the secretary of state to a president but as one former general to another. etc etc...
Former general? Musharraf? As I understand it, Musharraf is still the chief of the army, isn't he? The article also echoes an illogical sentiment (via Ambassador Robert Oakley) I find very commonly among both the western media and establishment.
"A more Pashtun-friendly government in Kabul makes it easier for Pakistan to go after the Taliban," Mr. Oakley said. In any case, he said, the United States has no real alternative to supporting Mr. Musharraf. "What choice do we have really?"
Really? TINA, is it? Why have these folks forgotten that Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government to become the dictator? The reason why there seems to be no alternative to Musharraf is because all of the *alternatives* have been sent into exile by the general. How about bringing back Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto and then claiming that there is no alternative? Yes, the regimes of both Sharif and Bhutto were corrupt etc, but were still regimes elected by the people. That's more than the general can say for himself.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has talked on the phone at least 81 times with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, often when the United States is demanding something. There are times when the two men slip into "general to general" mode.
One such exchange, State Department officials said, occurred in mid-2002, when India and Pakistan were massing troops and engaging in alarming "chatter" about resorting to nuclear weapons. According to those officials, Mr. Powell phoned Mr. Musharraf but addressed him not as the secretary of state to a president but as one former general to another. etc etc...
Former general? Musharraf? As I understand it, Musharraf is still the chief of the army, isn't he? The article also echoes an illogical sentiment (via Ambassador Robert Oakley) I find very commonly among both the western media and establishment.
"A more Pashtun-friendly government in Kabul makes it easier for Pakistan to go after the Taliban," Mr. Oakley said. In any case, he said, the United States has no real alternative to supporting Mr. Musharraf. "What choice do we have really?"
Really? TINA, is it? Why have these folks forgotten that Musharraf overthrew a democratically elected government to become the dictator? The reason why there seems to be no alternative to Musharraf is because all of the *alternatives* have been sent into exile by the general. How about bringing back Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto and then claiming that there is no alternative? Yes, the regimes of both Sharif and Bhutto were corrupt etc, but were still regimes elected by the people. That's more than the general can say for himself.
