Punch & Judy in Pakistan

One can always rely on Time's Tony Karon to provide some of the most incisive and informed analysis available. In his latest blog post, "Benazir vs Musharraf is Punch vs Judy", he doesn't disappoint.

"Appearances aside (although they camouflage very little), it’s plain that Bhutto and Musharraf are still involved in an elaborate U.S.-brokered negotiation process to divide the spoils of power in what might be called Pakistan’s Team America. Musharraf’s police may periodically prevent her from leaving her house, but they’re largely doing her the favor of providing her an excuse for refraining from leading her supporters in confrontation with the regime — which she, and her backers in Washington, are very concerned to avoid. Bhutto has not suffered the fate of other opposition leaders, who have been hounded by the security forces and thrown in prison. And her own political awkwardness and hesitation in responding to Musharraf’s moves are a reminder that all is not quite what it seems in the media narrative of a brave and beleaguered civilian democrat confronting a military despot."

"Musharraf didn’t declare emergency rule because he feared Bhutto’s challenge; he declared emergency rule because the Supreme Court was about to rule that he was not, in fact, legitimately the president of Pakistan, because he violated the constitution by standing for the presidency while in command of the military. And the reason Bhutto appeared to hesitate when it happened was obvious: She has as much to fear from the independent judiciary in Pakistan as Musharraf does. The same judges threatening to strip Musharraf of the presidency had also warned that the amnesty extended by him to Bhutto — absolving her of numerous corruption charges — was also illegal. (And, for good measure, the same judges had also ruled that Nawaz Sharif’s expulsion was illegal.) The last thing Bhutto needs is the rule of law and an independent judiciary in Pakistan, for that would pull the rug out from her deal with Musharraf, put her back in court, and bring her fiercest political rival back into the picture at a moment when she is increasingly vulnerable, politically, by virtue of her alliance with the U.S."

"House arrest, if anything, gives Benazir political cover for avoiding the streets. Better for Bhutto to sit out whatever turmoil will come in the weeks ahead, cultivating an image of martyrdom ahead of the elections that Musharraf promises for January (although a Musharraf promise and a dollar will buy you a cup of chai at Pak Punjab on Houston Street). Remember, Bhutto’s party may be the largest single party in Pakistan, but its ceiling is about 30% of the vote. If the Washington-brokered deal is to work, Musharraf, too, needs Bhutto’s popularity to be boosted."

"The sad thing, for the people of Pakistan, however, is that in the U.S.-sponsored Punch & Judy show, the only choice they’re offered is between the general and a discredited political relic. Regardless of the outcome of this particular Punch & Judy episode, democratic stability in Pakistan is not even on the horizon. "

Read the rest here.

Of course, in light of Washington's belligerent stance on Iran you might have thought that any regime which

(a) is as repressive as Tehran’s;

(b) has a proven and realised nuclear weapons program;

(c) stands a fair chance of being involved in an actual nuclear exchange with one of its neighbours;

(d) has been responsible for serious and extensive nuclear proliferation; and

(e) has deep and long-standing links to al-Qaeda and the Taliban

would be public enemy number one in Washington’s eyes. Not a bit of it. The US has mouthed the usual platitudes expressing its "concern" over recent developments, but has also made it clear that this "concern" doesn't extend to cutting off the vast sums of money its been shovelling down Musharraf's greedy neck since the start of the "war on terror".

So when you declare a "war on terror" and a crusade to spread democracy, what exactly does it mean when one of your closest allies is a brutal dictator who terrorises his own people?

For example, will Pakistan's descent into outright tyranny, with nary a peep from Musharaff's imperial master, prompt anyone in the political class to consider that perhaps the lofty ideals proclaimed by our governments ought not to be taken at face value? Can we expect to see articles in newspapers and academic journals that take criticism of Bush II era foreign policy slightly beyond the realms of "they fell short of their undoubtably noble ideals"? Is there a chance that from now on, when people like former Observer editor Will Hutton report that “the American political class talk democracy and freedom with an enthusiasm that cannot be denied”, they might at least note - just note - some of the more obvious contradictions between what these impressive people say and what they actually do?

In short, will the fact of US support for tyranny and state terror in Pakistan (not to mention elsewhere) be allowed to intrude upon the general assumption of our esteemed leaders' basic moral decency?

Or not?