The subterranean world of Pakistan’s byzantine politics

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Liaqat Park, Rawalpindi, on December 27 exposed to the world the seething struggle being waged in Pakistan not far beneath the surface between the fundamental religious right and the moderate Western leaning and centre.

Benazir was firmly in the Western camp. In order to try and maintain a hold on power Musharraf slides between the two, satisfying neither. The military is split along the same lines with the powerful intelligence service, the ISI, backing the Taliban while paying lip service to US requests. Musharraf is a captive to this powerful deception.

Benazir’s return to Pakistan was brokered by the US who believed she would put a democratic face on Musharraf’s regime thereby saving their face and allowing Musharraf to stay in office and fight the US war on Terror which he wasn’t.

Benazir’s assassins were likely known to the ISI and quietly or actively encouraged.

The US once again backed the wrong horse, or horses, in the form of Musharraf and the born-to-rule Benazir, although in the case of the latter they had little choice as, with their backing, Musharraf had snuffed out the democratic process which might have seen the emergence of other civilian leaders.

To put it mildly Pakistan is in a mess and has been so for some time. In the subterranean world of Pakistan’s byzantine politics, where allegiances are flexible and opposites join, a slow civil war is taking place.

With homemade nuclear weapons at the centre of Pakistan’s international relations the stakes are high.

US policy in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and now Pakistan has failed. To take a broader view, US policy in the Middle East and the sub-continent has failed both in terms of politics and policy. Its position on climate change provides a loose rein for India and a noose for Bangladesh.

The US is floundering, a dangerous dinosaur, blundering half blind through the world’s china shops.

From whichever way I look at it, the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Topography, climate, lack of infrastructure, lack of allied troops, lack of secure supply, lack of UN and NATO will and a lack of knowledge relating to the history of the region combine to make the war a folly. If not already, the war will soon be a war of forts and resemble, to all but the mercenaries, a colonial occupation.

With the murder of Benazir the politics and war in Afghanistan has lurched East. Is the ISI in control? No, but it is trying.

India is looking on askance at the rise of fundamental politics on its doorstep, well not quite looking on as it is an active player inside Pakistan. It also reads the politics of Pakistan better than most and certainly better than the US.

Iran will also be concerned at the prospect of instability in Pakistan. Despite US pressure Pakistan enjoys good relations with Iran at a number of different levels including diplomatically.

China is fed up with the explosive influence of the US in the Middle East which has now caused an earthquake in Pakistan. China has enjoyed a good relationship with moderate members of the Pakistan elite.

The demonisation of Iran by the US makes more difficult the task of negotiating with volatile regional players.

The US has all but dealt itself out of having any diplomatic influence in the region. The use of military force has been ineffective in Afghanistan, counter-productive in Iraq and is not possible in Pakistan.

With the US running Australian foreign policy for the past 11 years, diplomatic skills and reputation were diminished. Kevin Rudd is a cleanskin as far as the international community is concerned. He has early points on the board over his positive climate change intervention (together with Penny Wong) at Bali.

Rudd is a polished and accomplished diplomat. He is intelligent, far more so than his predecessor, he has good relations with the Chinese and if he can apologise over the Haneef affair he will also enjoy good relations with India. They are looking for a renewed closeness after the humiliation inflicted by Howard and Downer.

Rudd should consider putting together an initiative with China, India, Iran and Pakistan to work through measures that might go towards bringing a measure of stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Australia can claim a role because of its military involvement in Afghanistan but primarily because of Rudd’s skills and untarnished reputation. It is a role that Australia once played as an independent, moderate and middle ranking power.

US foreign policy is floundering, they would probably welcome such an initiative particularly if it were made known that they would be welcome to join the contact group once they bury the hatchet with Iran.

The adoption of such an initiative would be a great revival of Australian diplomacy and diplomatic skills which took such a battering under Howard and Downer.