http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5156&l=1
General Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law in Pakistan on 3 November
2007. He suspended the constitution, sacked the chief justice of
the Supreme Court and removed other judges of that court who declared
his act illegal. Police immediately began arresting lawyers, politicians
and human rights activists. Independent television channels were
taken off the air and reporting restrictions imposed. Thousands
have since been jailed, journalists threatened and protests by lawyers
and others suppressed. Replacing dissenting judges with hand-picked
appointees, and ruling by decree, Musharraf’s objective is
to retain personal power by gaining judicial approval for martial
law, followed by the creation of a democratic façade through
rigged elections. The international community should demand the
immediate restoration of constitutional order, the rule of law and
the legitimate judiciary, the release of political prisoners and
the appointment of an impartial caretaker government to oversee
free and fair elections.
Musharraf has
said he expects polls before 9 January and will take off his uniform
before taking his oath for a new presidential term. But this offer
does not go far enough. No proper elections can be held under martial
law, supervised by a Musharraf-controlled Election Commission and
a judiciary that has been purged and hand-selected by the military,
and while some political leaders are in jail and others are barred
from standing.
Musharraf claims
he acted to restore stability but in fact he has sought to stamp
out demands for democracy after eight years of military rule. The
general’s claims to legitimacy had worn thin, and he was facing
a challenge by the Supreme Court to his re-election as president
by a lame-duck and stacked electoral college in October. While saying
he was tackling extremism, the arrests of non-violent, secular people
showed his true intentions. Even as the military was filling the
jails with lawyers and journalists, they were releasing 28 militants,
some of whom had been convicted of terrorism, in yet another deal
with violent extremists.
In response
to all this, the U.S., the UK and the European Union (EU) have expressed
disappointment, but signalled they wish to continue cooperation
with President Musharraf and his government, particularly on counter-terrorism.
The focus has been on the need for Musharraf to remove his uniform
and conduct elections – not on the necessity of restoring
the constitutional order and the rule of law. The mistakes of the
international response in the past to Pakistan are being repeated.
The general has used the issue of terrorism with skill for years,
drip-feeding anxious Western governments limited intelligence on
jihadi groups while doing little to address extremism at home. Officials
in Washington and London have been particularly prone to mistaken
belief that the choice in Pakistan is between democracy and stability.
Apart from handing over a few high-level al-Qaeda members, Pakistan
has done little else: it has refused to close Taliban camps and
jihadi madrasas or end extremist recruitment and fundraising. Driven
by what is even in the short term a highly questionable interpretation
of their security interests, Western governments have weakened their
long-term security by supporting military rule rather than democratic
institutions and the people of Pakistan.
A strong international
response to military dictatorship has been hampered by anxiety that
Pakistan might become another Iran, hostile to Western interests
and yet a greater security threat if Musharraf were to leave the
scene, as happened when the Islamic Revolution deposed the Shah
in 1979. The analogy is false. Pakistan is a very different country,
with a vibrant civil society, courageous and respected judicial
and media institutions and above all a long democratic tradition
and civilian parties that are widely popular and experienced in
government. Its extremist forces have gained what status they have
in the country’s politics as the beneficiaries of military
manipulation, not broad citizen support.
This latest
coup makes it essential to rethink policy towards Pakistan and to
recognise that Musharraf is not only not indispensable; he is a
serious liability. Extremism would be better reduced now and would
be more assuredly barred in the future by the rule of law under
a democratic government led by one of the moderate political parties.
In response
to martial law, the international community should take the following
steps:
speak out unequivocally
for democracy in Pakistan, rejecting the idea that martial law is
needed for stability, and demand a return to constitutional order;
outline a series of graduated sanctions starting immediately with
suspension of high-level talks on military cooperation, suspension
of new military training, review of military aid to distinguish
what is essential counter-terrorism (CT) help from general assistance,
and establishment of performance-based conditionality on all non-CT
military assistance until constitutional order is restored;
follow this up – if Musharraf makes it necessary by not giving
up his post as army chief by 15 November when his parliamentary
dispensation to hold that post as well as the presidency expires,
and does not restore the constitution, release political prisoners,
restore the independent judiciary and accept its judgement on the
legality of his October 2007 re-election as president, and set a
date for elections – with gradually tougher sanctions, including
suspension of all non-CT military aid and visa bans for top military
and government officials;
if these steps are not taken within 30 days, restrict non-CT arms
sales; freeze officer training abroad and foreign assets of the
military and its foundations and businesses; and refuse to accept
high-level visits by Pakistani officials for as long as the constitution
is not restored and the military holds politicians, lawyers and
civil society actors under arrest and otherwise restricts their
civic freedoms; also insist that the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) be given unrestricted access to prevent torture
and abuse in custody; and simultaneously
expand aid for education, poverty reduction, healthcare and relief
work, channelling money through secular non-governmental organisations
(NGOs).
Islamabad/Brussels
|
