In the early days of this year, Pakistan’s coalition government was plunged into crisis after wasting a coalition partner, and then a prominent politician, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, was assassinated. A leading expert on the country, Stephen P. Cohen, says these incidents are symptoms of the deep turmoil that is tearing the country apart. The basic principles of the state are questionable, and this applies to the concept of Pakistan, to the ideology of the state, to the goal of the state, but also to the coherence of the state itself,” Cohen says. “I’m not predicting total failure in the near future, but that’s obviously the direction Pakistan is moving in. “On a recent trip, he was struck by the growing sense of lack of trust in Pakistan, including within the military, and the growing importance of China.
What is the scenario in Pakistan these days, in the face of the withdrawal of a key spouse in the coalition government and the assassination of a prominent member of the ruling coalition, who opposed the blasphemy law enjoyed by the country’s Muslim population?
These are symptoms of a deeper problem in Pakistan. There is not going to be any good news from Pakistan for some time, if ever, because the fundamentals of the state are either failing or questionable. This applies to both the idea of Pakistan, the ideology of the state, the purpose of the state, and also to the coherence of the state itself. Pakistan has lost a lot of its “stateness,” that is the qualities that make a modern government function effectively. So there’s failure in Pakistan on all counts. I wouldn’t predict a comprehensive failure soon but clearly that’s the direction in which Pakistan is moving.
Given Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons and its strategic location between Afghanistan and India, this is an imminent crisis for the United States, right?
More about:
All U. S. policies toward Pakistan are wrong, and some would possibly be worse than others. We don’t know if matching Pakistan will improve the situation or make it worse. Ideally, we should have a temporary device where we could also go back in history. and undo many of the decisions we’ve made in the past. Let us hope that we will not make any more fundamentally wrong decisions in the future, but that may not save Pakistan from going further down the path of disintegration. The State Department was quoted in a WikiLeaks document [saying] that if there were no nuclear weapons, Pakistan would be Conpass. I would compare it to Nigeria without oil. It would not be a serious situation, but the nuclear weapons and terrorist devices provided by the country make the scenario very serious.
If this is a challenge to anyone in the future, it will be China’s challenge. I just spent several weeks in Pakistan. One thing I have discovered is the lack of trust in the country in a way I have never seen, not even in the army cantonments. The other is that China’s influence in Pakistan is much greater and deeper than I had imagined. In a sense, this is India’s challenge, but in the long run it will be China’s challenge.
Describe China’s influence.
Of course, they provided army generation and probably put the Pakistanis in contact with the North Koreans for missile generation. The Chinese have one fear in Pakistan: the education of Chinese militants and extremists inside Pakistan. The Chinese have no challenge with the style of Tiananmen Square. Crowd control. When the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) exploded in Islamabad in 2007, it happened after a dozen Chinese were kidnapped and complained publicly. Pakistanis ignored our protests against the mosque for many years. But they acted temporarily when the Chinese protested, killing many women and girls in the process. This is one of the defining issues in President Pervez Musharraf’s career, as he confronted many activists opposed to him. Before that time, he had either ignored them or supported them, but after Lal Masjid, they have become his enemies.
What is the importance of militants or terrorists? Can they the State?
Activists – whether they are called anti-American, anti-liberal or anti-secular – seem to have veto power over politics in Pakistan, but they cannot govern the state. There are party elections, but they can save others from governing, and they can also save you from the rule of the army.
More on:
Some expected a military coup, but don’t you think that will happen?
We want to do what we can and prepare for Pakistan’s failure, which may happen in four, five or six years’ time.
I don’t think the military wants to be in that position now. I don’t think the military chief Ashfaq Kayani has such a game plan. He is as smart and calculating as President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq [military president from 1977 until his assassination in 1988] was. He is quite different from Musharraf–not an Islamist himself, but he has certainly supported them in the past. I know the Pakistan military cannot govern Pakistan. They’ve tried it three times in the past and each time failed. This time they would have to deal with more active militants. The liberal forces are in retreat, and I don’t see the army supporting the liberal forces in Pakistan.
Speaking of anti-American sentiment, how did such a strong national sentiment arise?
Historically, the Pakistani elite has created a narrative of U. S. -Pakistan relations that shows the U. S. has let Pakistan down. A turning point was the Iranian revolution of 1979, [which] showed many Pakistanis that status on a par with the Americans, embarrassing them. Humiliating them, it was good. Whether they were Sunnis or Shiites in Pakistan, it felt good. It all comes down to everyone in Pakistan who is involved in U. S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. They seem to care more about Israel and Palestine than they do about themselves. The irony of Pakistan is that its main foreign policy obsessions are those about which it can do nothing, including Israel and Palestine. When U. S. and NATO forces entered Iraq and Afghanistan, it was perceived as a direct risk to Pakistan. They feared that the Islamist states would be overthrown one after another, starting with Iraq, passing through Afghanistan and ending with Pakistan. Most of those claims are imaginary, but many Pakistanis believe them to be true.
We have noted the collapse of the coalition government, which is happening all over the world, but why has so much sadness and unhappiness been expressed in Pakistan?
It is the inability of the Pakistani state to teach its people in an elegant way; It is the failure of the Pakistani economy to grow. If it were an American analogy, it would be as if Pakistan were an underwater space. Except for its territory, which is of strategic importance, there are few things in Pakistan that can take advantage of anyone. They have failed to take advantage of globalization. They use terrorism as a facet of globalization, which is the negative aspect of globalization. Follow the list of factors, at most all are negative. There are none that are positive. They need outside assistance to unload financial aid. The clash with India depletes most of its budget. Their foreign policy differences with India cannot. They have fights with us over Afghanistan, although they are probably right that we don’t perceive the Afghans either. The question that comes to mind is whether these adjustments will be irreversible and whether Pakistan will be able to become a general state.
Activists – whether called anti-American, anti-liberal or anti-secular – appear to have veto power over politics in Pakistan, but they rule the state.
What do you think?
Hope is a policy, but neither is despair. We want to do what we can and prepare for Pakistan’s failure, which may happen in four, five or six years’ time.
Talk about the terrorists.
There is an agreement with the government. Terrorist attacks are decreasing. It turns out that there is an agreement through the security forces to accommodate terrorist groups. I don’t see the government regaining its position on the borders. The Pakistani Taliban is a designated enemy, but the army cannot act. opposite to them. The army itself is concerned about its integrity.
Discuss the murder of Taseer.
He was like Sherry Rehman, a close associate of Benazir Bhutto. Rehman had introduced a private member’s bill to repeal the blasphemy law, and [Taseer] backed her, and that apparently led to his guard killing him. The blasphemy law makes the medieval Catholic Church look liberal. Anyone who stands up and criticizes the law has his life in danger. Rehman is prominently mentioned in press coverage. I don’t think she will back down. She is a lady of strong principles, like Benazir.
Is the fear of India genuine?
It’s authentic, because it speaks to the identity of Pakistan. They know how to reconcile their strategic desire for conciliation with India. Of course, India takes a hard line on many issues, only in Kashmir. India has allowed China to gain over Pakistan as a strategic active country. Now it’s a trilateral game between Chinese and Indians, with the Pakistanis on the Chinese side.