Inside the glass house

NEW YORK - The Bush administration is facing one of its major foreign policy challenges in Pakistan where the continuing civil unrest is threatening to destabilise a country described as one of America's most trusted allies in the war on terrorism. Perhaps the only country in the world with both nuclear weapons and suicide bombers, Pakistan has a lethal combination of the two perceived evils — even though there is only a remote chance of the two coming together in one deadly mix.

The US, which has pledged to spread multi-party democracy worldwide and touts the virtues of the rule of law and press freedom, is caught in a political dilemma. Far from a transforming into a democracy, Pakistan is in the process of going politically backwards — much to the disappointment of the Bush administration. Should the US turn a blind eye to Gen. Pervez Musharraf's decision last week to declare emergency rule and continue with his military dictatorship and political repression?

Or should it cut off aid — totalling over $12 billion dollars since 2001, mostly for the military — and hasten the departure of Musharraf's government? Perhaps both are easier said than done. Pakistan, after all, is one of America's front-line states in the global war on terror. The war against the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan is only possible with a pliable US ally in Pakistan. If US loses Pakistan, it is also in danger of losing Afghanistan.

Musharraf has justified the current repression — including the arrests of lawyers, the suspension of the constitution and the abolition of the supreme court — as an intensification of his war on terrorism. But the Americans, who usually fall in line with undemocratic, anti-terrorism restraints by its allies, are not buying Musharraf's justification for his iron-fisted rule. Since the military has been mostly the power behind the throne since Pakistan gained independence about 60 years ago, the Bush administration may be looking for a substitute army general to take over from Musharraf — on condition there is a pledge to return Pakistan to a multi-party democracy, sooner than later.

Until now, the US has taken a strong stand calling on Musharraf to step down as army chief and transform himself into a civilian head of state. He cannot have it both ways. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that President Bush had told Musharraf, in a phone call last week, that he should shed his military uniform. "You can't be both the president and the head of the army," Bush is quoted as having told Musharraf. But there are no signs that Musharraf is willing to do so. If he continues to defy the US, the Senate and the House of Representatives may move towards a freeze or a cut-off in aid to Pakistan, much against the wishes of the Bush administration.

The White House, which is still hoping for a positive reaction from Musharraf, is also insisting that Pakistan hold elections, as scheduled earlier, in mid-February. But there is no guarantee that elections will take place, particularly after last week's imposition of emergency rule, and the unrelenting stand taken by Musharraf. Meanwhile, there is also a potentially darker side to the proposed elections. What if nation-wide elections bring forth a predominantly Islamic government?

Or perhaps a radical leadership antagonistic to the US — as Hezbollah and Hamas proved in Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied territories respectively? The chances are remote but the possibilities cannot be ruled out. Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, is waiting in the wings hoping Musharaff will hold elections next year. But she is now under virtual house arrest.

The crisis in Pakistan also comes at a time when the Bush administration is struggling with two of its longstanding battles, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. With Turkey threatening to invade Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels, the White House has been actively engaged in restraining the Turks, who are longstanding political and military allies. Any invasion of Iraq by Turkey will upset the military equilibrium in a country that could be split three sectarian ways: the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds.

But Turkey, which is also an active member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), does not want in its own backyard a separate nation state called Kurdistan because such a state will only stir the nationalistic feelings of Kurds living inside Turkey.

Bush, war on terror and a dilemma called Pakistan