Democracy seems to have taken a back seat in the list of American priorities about emerging scenario in Pakistan. Though President Pervez Musharraf’s doffing of military uniform has been well received here, deep suspicions about his commitment to holding of free and fair elections continue to be echoed in the media. Demands for democracy and fair elections might be a political rhetoric adopted by the Bush Administration to satisfy an increasingly apprehensive American public about Musharraf’s handling of the latest political upheavals; the real concern in Washington is more than democracy. It’s about the safety of Pakistani nukes in case of complete breakdown of Pakistani state in the coming weeks and months. American media, as well as their British cousins across the Atlantic, are almost awash with news adorned with unusual concern about the safety of Pakistani nukes. Hyperbolic stories about worst case scenarios are in the rumor mills of Washington and London, while columnists and opinion writers are raising more questions about Bush Administration’s wisdom of “investing” more in President Musharraf.
Story after story speaks of drills on nightmarish fictions about the vulnerability of Pakistani nukes and the level of military engagement required to “secure” Pakistan’s most prized and deadly asset if its present crisis goes into an irrecoverable tailspin. A report in the British daily The Guardian said, in a report on December 1, that the political and security crises in Pakistan had led the Bush administration to conclude that the country had become a more dangerous place than it was before Musharraf took over in October 1999. Some analysts compare today’s Pakistan to the last days of Shah of Iran, while others think that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are as insecure as the former Soviet Union’s were at the time of its breakup in 1991.
The Bush Administration is being urged to plan for dealing with an unstable nuclear armed Pakistan. The talk of “sending elite British or U.S. troops to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or transporting them to a secret storage depot in New Mexico or a ‘remote redoubt’ inside Pakistan” no longer raises any eyebrows in the Pakistani diplomatic community in Western capitals, Washington included. Such talk also does not evoke a diplomatic initiative by Pakistan’s ruling elite to clean the country’s name of these doubts and uncertainties. The Pakistani establishment’s indifference to the maligning of the country’s name, for genuine or dubious reasons, is inexcusable and cannot be described short of a diplomatic and PR disaster.
The alarm bells being raised about the safety of Pakistani nukes are less compelling when one looks at the security record of nuclear assets of some of the most advanced nuclear powers, including the Russian Federation and the United States. Reports of Soviet nuclear briefcase bombs that went missing at the time of USSR’s break up are still fresh in the memory of many security analysts. Similarly, the August 2007 incident of a U.S. Air Force plane taking off with live nuclear-armed cruise missiles and seemingly no clarity as to who had ordered the same also looks like yesterday’s happening. If media reports are to be believed, the custodian of the said warheads, the U.S. Air Force, had actually lost track of its own nuclear weapons. The narration of these examples is not aimed at proving that nuclear assets of these countries are insecure or these lack enough safeguards.
Rather, it is to signify the chances of human or any other error that can happen at any stage of handling of these assets. It is little wonder that error knows no boundaries. It can happen in most advanced countries of the world, and there can be no guarantee that an error would not lead to a disaster. If this rule can apply to other nuclear armed nations having the most sophisticated command and control and security system, it applies to Pakistan too, which has been helped by its strategic partner, the United States, over the past few years to develop better safeguards. Estimates say the United States has spent at least $100 million on improving command and control system for Pakistani nukes. Thus it could be assumed, with not too many exceptions, that nuclear arms in Pakistan might be as vulnerable to disaster as anywhere else in the world.
With the American Press is not willing to pay heed to the herds of Pakistani diplomats in Washington and elsewhere, it was President Pervez Musharraf himself who opted to “straighten up” the facts and wrote an opinion article for one of his greatest American critics, The Washington Post, on December 2.
The President explained in great detail the precarious security situation in Pakistan as the basis for his unpopular decisions since November 3. In his 952-word, un-ceremonial articulation, the President, time and again, assures his American readers that he is committed to war against religious extremism, to the holding of fair and free elections, and to maintaining the country’s stability. However, where he seems to have faltered is in the last paragraph of his article where, instead of reassuring the world in unequivocal terms about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, he seems to be trying to use the Western apprehensions and fears to his advantage. Said Musharraf in the concluding paragraph, “My policies have reflected the aspirations of the progressive, moderate forces in Pakistan that have been aimed at containing the growing extremist forces fueled by regional unrest. Pakistan's physical security and that of the world necessitates that religious extremists be sidelined; that Pakistan's natural resources and nuclear assets be protected; and that military morale remains high.”
Musharraf’s caveats in the Post failed to satisfy the increasingly suspicious American intelligentsia about the sincerity of his intent. Many in Washington, including some Pakistani observers, are calling the President’s op-ed defense of his actions in the Post as another political pratfall.
“Why would a sovereign country’s president play to the galleries of another country?” The answer to this frequently asked question is still not forthcoming and is forcing many to form another, maybe illusionist, opinion that Musharraf is drawing his strength from Washington after losing his coveted army post due to the pressure from his friends in White House. President Musharraf’s latest act, and the importance he gives to Washington’s backing for his political survival, is being taken as sign of his weakness.
While Pakistan may find it difficult to hire a lobbyist in Washington these days, yet thanks to Musharraf’s clout, it still has very strong backing in the White House. Mushrraf may not have admirers on the Hill, but he still commands very strong support in the White House. Bush indeed is a true friend of the President who in recent weeks has come out and defended him in the strongest terms. The general, said Bush on November 20, "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."
In the interview with ABC News, conducted at Camp David, Bush disputed the suggestion that he has put too much faith in Musharraf. "He's been a loyal ally in fighting terrorists. He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan," Bush said. "He has said he's going to take off his uniform. He's said there will be elections. Today he released prisoners, and so far I've found him to be a man of his word."
Bush’s comments stirred more criticism than admiration with analysts and key Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who expressed incredulity over the comments and called them a sign of how “personally invested” Bush has become in the U.S. relationship with Musharraf.
Democrats are not alone in chiding Bush’s vision of Pakistani democracy. He has also started getting flak from media commentators and human rights activists. On November 20, Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch was quoted by The Washington Post as saying that "it's hard to imagine how the administration will be able to achieve anything in Pakistan if the president is so disconnected from reality. Almost everyone in Pakistan who believes in George Bush's vision of democracy is in prison today. Calling the man who put them in prison a great democrat will only discredit America among moderate Pakistanis and give Musharraf confidence that he can continue to defy the United States because Bush will forgive anything he does."
