Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Pakistan: problem or partner

14:10 / 11.08.05

Kind of following on from the George Galloway thread, partly out of my own interested I figured it would be worth talking about Pakistan, particularly its place in 'The West''s War Against Terror.

As even the most cursory of glances at the wikipedia entry on Pakistan reveals that it is a nation with a rich and complex past. Since independence it has osscilated between democracy and military dictatorship and has been in several wars with its neighhbour India. There are still areas of dispute between these two countries. It is the second largeest Islamic nation in the world and the sixth most populous country. Economically, it is considered a developing nation. It is also a nuclear power.

It's current president, General Pervez Musharraf siezed power in 1999, and elections held since then have been flawed in numerous ways.

While Musharraf has allied Pakistan with the US led War Against Terror, it is a position that does not necessarily command widespread support among the population.

So, what do people think of Pakistan and, more specifically, is it more of a hinderance th or a help in The War Against Terror?

unheimlich manoeuvre

17:20 / 11.08.05

Pakistan: with US or against US.

Now I've never been to Pakistan so my idea is constructed by the media and conversations I've had with people who've lived there. So sorry if I'm not dealing with the complexities that this question deserves.
One of the things the Wiki article doesn't raise is Pakistan's relationship with China and the old USSR. China has recently signed new treaties normalizing borders with Russia and India, is the third country with a portion of Kashmir and is ****ing the Muslim communities in it's western provinces. Pakistan's intelligence service, with the CIA, funded armed groups in Afghanistan and Chechnya do they still do so? The question is does Karachi have control of the madressas that are along the Pakistan-Afghan border?
Seems that Pakistan was involved in a delicate balancing act during the cold war?

from the wiki article:
Prime Minister Jamali resigned on June 26, 2004. PML-Q leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain became interim PM, and was succeeded by Finance minister and former Citibank Vice President Shaukat Aziz, who became Prime Minister on August 28, 2004.

That I didn't know.
I think Pakistan is a *partner* of the West. Strong economy, large middle class, military dictatorship ... check.

21:00 / 11.08.05

I don't think Pakistan is a strong economy by any stretch of the imagination and its capital is Islamabad, not Karachi, which is the country's largest city. It's kind of like the difference between New York and Washington DC.

Traditionally, China and Russia nave been seen (mainly by 'the west') as the big threats in the region with Pakistan's ongoing disputes, and indeed wars, with India also playing into this.

I guess the operative questions are to what extent is Mushariff's far from perfect (to say the very least) 'democracy' a boon and to what extent it harms long term aims at stabilization in the region and a vigourous full democracy...

whothehell@where?

00:08 / 12.08.05

problematic partner? keep your enemies closer

16:41 / 07.09.05

Great thread title, by the way.

16:37 / 30.09.06

In the wake of President Musharraf's recent tour of the US and UK and rather blunt statement West 'will fail' without Pakistan, I wondered what people thought about Pakistan and its President now.

17:56 / 04.10.06

I think Musharraf's statement is pretty self-evident. We have already seen how useful 'intellegence' gathered by the west has turned out to be. It strikes me that an organisation like ISI is going to be more useful than one predominantly made up of non-muslims.

What I found more interesting in Musharraf's recent statements to the press was his claim that when approached by the US to become 'one of the willing' (or what ever Bush called his possie) the US Deputy Secretary of State at the time threatened to 'bomb Pakistan into to the stone age' if they refused to join the party. Way to make partners and win hearts and minds.

I think the focus of this thread is a little wonky for my personal world view. I'm not sure there are any real partnerships in this whole shambles. I think the US would drop any one of it's allies (including the UK) in a heartbeat if it proved (party) politically expedient. In fact, the US have apeared to disregard any oppinion other than Bush's approval rating since the get go. Where are the other partners?

21:16 / 04.10.06

Yeah, I was attempting reflect the difficult and polyvalent position Pakistan, and by extension, its leader, is in. I certainly realise a lot of problems in the notion of 'partnership' with the US. it wasn't my aim to attempt to endorse the policies and ideaology of the current US administration, but by referring the TWAT I guess that is what I did.

So, what would you describe the opposing forces pulling Pakistan in different directions as being? Religious extremists of varying stripe within Pakistan, numerous countries pressuring the Pakistan to take action against them from without...

23:40 / 04.10.06

I think in terms of the curent international climate the only way forward that might be useful for all concerned would be if the US bank rolled an international force from Muslim countries to take over peace keeping duties and stopped threatening to/actually bombing places back to the stone age, whilst Afghanistan and Iraq put themselves back together.

But that's off the top of my head at quarter past my arse in the morning, waddo I know?

01:17 / 05.10.06

Let's keep in mind that at the time of that statement, he was under heavy criticism for the whole Waziristan fiasco. Perhaps a little misdirection?

01:23 / 05.10.06

And

A) What constitutes a Muslim country?
B) What would make you think that they'd want to form a peacekeeping force?

12:28 / 05.10.06

A country who's culture is largely Muslim meaning that most of the forces on the ground would at least have that in common with the occupied population. As oppose to a force who view their culture as alien/'heathen'.

I am thinking of Malasia Pakistan Tunisia Morocco Algeria...

And apsolutely nothing makes me think they would want to form a peace keeping force. Maybe if they could avail themselves of some of the long term finacial benefits that are motivating the US currently that might motivate them, but your right why the fuck would any nation not already up to their armpits in this volunteer to clean up a mess not of their making.

What was/is the Waziristan fiasco. I've managed to miss this event.

Not in the Face

13:30 / 05.10.06

A country who's culture is largely Muslim meaning that most of the forces on the ground would at least have that in common with the occupied population. As oppose to a force who view their culture as alien/'heathen'.

Although that makes a big assumption about national cultures and how they would be perceived - Iran for instance would probably not be well received in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also the situation in manyof these areas is not really peacekeeping, where the soldiers are trying to maintain a pre-existing peace accord or ceasefite by both sides. Instead Western nations (principally US/UK) have plumped to support, by force of arms, one Muslim government against a different set of Muslims who want to be (and in the loosest sense of the word, were) the government. A Muslim force would simply be caught in the same situation unless both sides were ready to talk.

19:16 / 07.10.06

My big assumption is that as the current al Queda V US UK tension (euphamism alert) is based on a perseption of western colonialism within Arab Muslim regions the invasion of a western non muslim force into a muslim state is never going to end well. And you will notice my ommission of Iran from my list of the potential unwilling.

Also the situation in manyof these areas is not really peacekeeping, where the soldiers are trying to maintain a pre-existing peace accord or ceasefite by both sides. Instead Western nations (principally US/UK) have plumped to support, by force of arms, one Muslim government against a different set of Muslims who want to be (and in the loosest sense of the word, were) the government.

i don't think this is a reasonable appraisal of what has happened in the last five or so years.

A sovereign state was invaded by countries against international law, who proceded to effect regime change and then create the parameters for the installation of a new government. It is unlikely that under these circumstances and within the context of the anti-western colonialism war being waged by paramilitaries agianst occupying forces that any peace will be achieved any time soon.

A Muslim force might enter the vacuum of the retreating western war mongers and be perceived by the host population as a short term stabalising force who were fulfulling peace keeping duties rather than a force of occupation. If the US/UK had withrawn then the role of any muslim force prepared to step in would be entering a civil war situation that might be similar to the status of Nato in the Balkan conflicts of the ninties.