How shall we fare with him?
Hassan Ali Shahzeb
He came, he took centre stage and then he left. That is the real story of General Pervez Musharraf’s 15 minutes of fame, even though we have been told that he had a very successful visit to the US. Sept 11 which elevated his status from a pariah to a most sort-after foreign dignitary. Of course, as the latest
leader of the foremost “Front Line State” against the “war on terrorism”, Americans were all out to seduce the military ruler of nuclear Pakistan who faced the menacing “threat of a fundamentalist take over.”
Americans are masters in the art of seducing visiting foreign dignitaries, particularly from third world countries. There are specialists assigned for this task who first draw a profile of the visiting leader and the spouse, taking great care to details, including likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. When General Waheed Kakar visited Washington as the COAS of non-nuclear Pakistan many years ago, a newly assigned protocol officer at the Pentagon approached a senior colleague and asked for the logic behind showing so much pomp and protocol to someone “who wasn’t even a defense secretary”. The protocol officer was advised to follow orders and shut up. When Benazir Bhutto visited Washington, a tray-full of pastries and a coffeecake (her favourites) was waiting for her at Blair House, the official residence of visiting heads of government. For the first husband there was a large tray of UN cracked nuts of different kinds (his favourite). She was given a Queen’s protocol with Hollywood glitter, which she absolutely “lurved”.
Of course, General Pervez Musharraf, who is yearning for legitimacy and international acceptance as a leader, was accorded a protocol reserved for nothing less than world statesmen. President George W Bush had two long sessions with him and ate at the same table. At the UN General Assembly our General was assigned one of the best time slots. All this must have been quite blinding. Last year when Musharraf came to the General Assembly session, President Clinton told his security team that he did not want to be seen shaking hands with him. Indeed, at the end of it, the General had to sit through a hectoring lecture from, of all persons, Mrs Hasina Wajid, the then Prime Minister of Bangladesh.
Should we blame the General if he were to now start walking on air like royalty in his own country? (I didn’t say king). In fact, he seemed to take the first step in that direction while he was still in New York. He chose The Washington Post and Tim Russet’s “Meet the Press” program, the two bastions of democracy in the world, to announce his firm decision to remain President beyond 2002. Under normal circumstances that would have been bombshell but these are extraordinary times and the remark was largely ignored by the palatable Pakistani press in the US.
As far as the General’s performance is concerned, he tended to switch gears between being a blunt General and acting like a statesman, sometimes being unable to decide which role best suited him in the host country. He was at his best at two places–at the General Assembly podium and at the Pakistani community dinner. At the General Assembly he talked about the root cause of terrorism, a lecture that actually annoyed the Americans. He raised the Kashmir issue forcefully and unapologetically. “A just and honourable solution for the people of Kashmir, an end to the miseries of the people of Palestine are the major burning issues that have to be addressed vigorously, boldly, imaginatively and urgently”. He accused India of deceit by distorting the Kashmiri people’s struggle for liberation, which has seen the killing of 75, 000 Kashmiris. “ It is time it must stop such deceit. The UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir must be implemented,” he added.
As if to test the patience of his new friends in America he teased them by his remark that the people of Pakistan still suffered from a sense of betrayal and abandonment, when they were left in the lurch by the US in 1989 after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In exchange, Pakistan was lumped with three million refugees, a shattered economy, drugs and Kalashnikovs. This prompted his media managers to boast about his performance as a bold “trendsetter” in the General Assembly session. However, following the collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan, some people here are saying that Pakistan is not so dear to the West now and the same speech may come to be viewed as a liability, lacking diplomatic finesse. In fact, a few Thinktank groups and media organizations, as well as some US policy makers here have started to express reservations about the General’s speech now.
General Musharraf was lucky that he enjoyed the high tide of hospitality before the fall of Kabul. A lot has changed since then. Not only that the Northern Alliance forces have entered Kabul in defiance of the joint statement between President Bush and President Musharraf, they have also earned praise from the US for their patience and co-operation in establishing order in Kabul. Pakistan has thus lost the initiative in this war against terrorism and may now have to rely on a failure of the Alliance to deliver the goods for its own fortunes. Privately, too, American policy makers are expressing their disappointment with Pakistan for failing to engineer a swift break-up of the Taliban or producing a credible substitute in the Pashtun belt. Hence Pakistan’s bargaining position may have suffered and the Americans may not be overly accommodating towards Pakistani sensitivities Another casualty of these past ten weeks of enhanced engagement between Pakistan and the US has been the Pakistani intellectual and opinion maker who thought the Taliban would fight to the bitter end and make Afghanistan another Vietnam for America. US policy makers and experts routinely read the internet editions of Pakistani publications, including those that give particular importance to the opinion columns of retired military officers. In hindsight most of them now appear quite distant from reality.
The other celebrated occasion was a reception hosted by the Pakistani exchequer for over 1200 members of the Pakistani community. A group of Pakistanis known for its perennial approval of all visiting heads of government, elected or otherwise, was very eager to live up to its reputation. The General enjoyed the friendly crowd and spoke for almost two hours, interrupted by rounds of applause. Outside the banquet hall, however, the “silent majority” of Pakistani expatriates was disappointed that their leader did not raise the issue of Pakistani harassment by the FBI and the immigration services. The Pakistani community in New York is very sensitive to such harassment since Sept 11. For them, the F-16s were not as important. In fact, the F16 issue became something of an embarrassment for the General. People question the wisdom of raising the issue in public when it was a non-starter to begin with. Besides, for American policy-makers, it suggested that the Pakistani leadership was more interested in arms proliferation instead of economic revival.
In this fast changing scenario, and with a degree of hindsight following the high profile visit of General Musharraf that was characterised as “the beginning of a new era”, many political analysts now believe that General Musharraf’s “bold and straight forward” talk may turn out to be a liability in the long run. However during those four days that he was in the US,people saw a metamorphosis in him. The protocol that he received from the Americans was blinding, the thunderous applause that the expatriate Pakistanis gave him was deafening and the admiration that sycophants showered on him was intoxicating. If he should now succumb to human weakness, how shall we fare? |
