Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How Will Pakistani Conflict Impact the World?

By Paul Staniland, MIT Center for International Studies. Posted November 23, 2007.


The conflicts on the Afghan border and within Musharraf's dictatorship could have a large rippling effect in neighboring countries and abroad.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

South Asia has emerged as a strategically pivotal region, from the counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan to the emergence of India as an economic and military power. The current political crisis in Pakistan -- with President Pervez Musharraf suspending the constitution and declaring an emergency on November 3 -- threatens core interests of South Asia's major political actors, including the United States.

There are two distinct conflicts within Pakistan's polity. The first is between rebels along the Afghan border and the Pakistani state, and the second is between pro-democracy forces and Musharraf's military dictatorship. The outcomes of both struggles will affect the rest of the region, with some implications potentially being felt globally. Who is affected by Pakistan's turmoil, and why?

Pakistan on the Brink

The army has been the country's key political player since the 1950s, combining a focus on India with a domestic-political role as guardian and governor. The army is the most cohesive and well-organized institution in the country. Its involvement in political life is so embedded that a true withdrawal from politics is highly unlikely. Since Musharraf's coup in 1999, the army has further expanded its reach into society and the economy, sidelining political parties and civil society organizations.

Musharraf's decision to unseat the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikar Muhammed Chaudry, in March 2007 outraged lawyers and pro-democracy activists who took to the streets in protest. These protests put pressure on Musharraf to move toward some kind of democratization, with a focus on fashioning a power-sharing deal with exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. This further encouraged pro-democracy forces and the country's judiciary to stand up to Musharraf. The specific trigger for the November 3 imposition of a state of emergency was apparently intelligence reports that the Supreme Court was going to rule that Musharraf's re-election in October was unconstitutional.

This would be enough drama for most countries. But Pakistan is also sorely pressed by the rise of radical Islamist violence and tribal revolt along its western border with Afghanistan. Pakistani rulers' decisions during the 1980s and 1990s to back militants in Afghanistan and Kashmir have boomeranged to devastating effect. The ruling establishment now faces spreading radicalization, accelerated by easy availability of weapons and a plethora of militant organizations, which are starting to seep into the country's urban core. The Pakistan army is extremely hard-pressed in these border regions, suffering high losses and shocking instances of surrender and desertion that have raised serious alarm among informed observers. Recent reports suggest that even the elite strike corps usually intended for action on the Indian border are being re-deployed into the Afghan border regions.

This pair of conflicts, and Musharraf's response, is deeply troubling to the other major actors in the region. Pakistan also is the site of a simmering tribal revolt in the southwestern province of Balochistan, and ethnic tensions in Karachi and the southern province of Sindh. Now we need to consider how the current instability in Pakistan affects these states. The international and domestic politics of South Asia's states are tightly intertwined, and so spillover from Pakistan's politics cannot be easily isolated or contained.

The Neighbors

Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul has consistently sparred with Musharraf's Pakistan. The resurgent Taliban are primarily based in Afghanistan's south among the Pashtun community. The Durand Line separating Pakistan and Afghanistan artificially divides Pashtuns who can be found on both sides of the border. The Taliban have been greatly assisted by these cross-border ties. Moreover, many American and Indian officials allege that the Pakistani government did not crack down on the Taliban as hard as it should have after the overthrow of the Taliban regime. There is powerful suspicion that Pakistan's dominant security elites see the Taliban and Pashtun rebels as their key tool of influence within strategically crucial Afghanistan and thus have continued to at least tacitly support them.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, afghanistan, pakistan, taliban, musharraf, pashtun

Paul Staniland is a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Political Science.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The US and Europe built, funded, ARMED, and trained Pakistan to be what it continues to be.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 23, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the real reason America and Europe look the other way when it comes to Pakistan.

Mumbai - Why America Looks The Other Way

The truth is that the real losers are the commoners in that country itself. I have co-workers who came from Pakistan and not a single one of them has anything positive to say about the situation there. From childhood on out, if you're not living life the "military" style, you are already cast aside as a pariah ! To make matters worse, for the past 50 years, ever since Pakistan was created and MIS/AB-used by Britain and the US in their war against USSR which was already crumbling from within, the country has been paid by the US and Europe to be one of the most BLATANT violators of human rights in addition to China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, UAE, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balochistan deserves more than a passing mention
Posted by: brunowe on Nov 23, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is also a serious issue in Pakistan. The International Crisis Group did a short piece on it recently. I quote one paragraph aptly describing the situation.

"By targeting the Baloch leadership, marginalising secular nationalist parties, sidelining the provincial legislature, forging ahead with contentious development plans and using military force to subdue dissent, the government has shown a disregard for the political process that is now
widely mirrored in Balochistan. Many young Baloch have lost faith in politics and picked up the gun."

The piece mentions that one of Pakistan's methods is backing a Pashtun Islamist party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), that happens to be a backer of the Taliban.

Googling "Baloch insurgency" can turn up further stuff. It is a serious issue not only in its own right but also because it diverts efforts from the hunt for al-Qaida in the northwestern tribal territories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Geopolitics? The new name is petropolitics.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 23, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, the Iran - Pakistan - India natural gas pipeline?

Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline: the Baloch wildcard, Jan 2005

"For both energy hungry India and its swiftly growing neighbor, Pakistan, the need for natural gas is more pressing than ever. Pakistan has one of the world’s fastest growing populations and its demand for gas will expand significantly over the next two decades. India’s gas demand will almost double by 2015 and due to the decline of its reserves it will be forced to import increasing amounts of gas. As the world’s second largest gas reserve, Iran is the most geographically convenient supplier of gas to both countries."

So, in this context things start looking little different. The U.S. wants to isolate Iran as part of the greater goal of controlling all Middle East energy production - megalomaniacal and imperial, but that's the agenda. The U.S. has been opposing the gas pipeline for that reason.

As for the people affected by the pipeline:

"The area of the Balochistan-Punjab border where the pipeline is supposed to run is one of Pakistan's poorest areas and its most restive province. In recent years it has been a battleground of private militias belonging to Baloch tribes. Sporadic armed clashes resulted in attacks against water pipelines, power transmission lines and gas installations. Yet, the region strategically important due to its large reserves of oil and gas. But these riches did little for the Baloch tribesmen."

This is all blatantly obvious and any "expert in foreign policy" should, at this late date, understand the role that energy plays in the geopolitical situation. Why does the author ignore that fundamental issue? Take a look at the author's bio. MIT, Rand, Daley, Specter, U. Chicago. . .

The fact is, the U.S. government doesn't want to be seen as bent on controlling global energy supplies - but that is precisely what is going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too Complicated
Posted by: Sparks56 on Nov 23, 2007 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even taking into account petroleum resources in Balochistan, the situation is far too complex for the Bush Administration to deal with. Asserting, correctly, that had we left Iraq alone and pursued Al Qaeda in Afghanistan we might still have enough diplomatic and military strength to deal with Pakistan is water under the bridge. It's done and the US is a powerless paper tiger that can do little good and a great deal of harm. (As I write this, Condoleza Rice is organizing a meaningless conference in Annapolis to talk about Israel and Palistine.Some priority. I guess Iraq is on a back burner.)The prospect of Pakistan and India duking/nuking it out is frightening. In the meantime, America dozes through another presidential election campaign dreaming of stem cells and illegal dishwashers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Impact" isn't a verb
Posted by: drcyflowers on Nov 23, 2007 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"How Will Pakistani Conflict Impact the World?"

Will you people please stop using "impact" as a verb? What's wrong with the real English verb "affect"?

Stop trying to impress people with your yuppie terms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Impact" is a verb Posted by: Monitor523