What's at Stake in Pakistan

The news coming out of Pakistan reminds us of what's at stake in our relationship with that nation -- which possesses nuclear weapons and serves as a base camp for al Qaeda -- and how our Iraq-centric policies are undermining our national security interests in the region. As the administration struggles to respond to General Pervez Musharraf's imposition of martial law, it's important for us to step back and reassess our national security priorities in the region.

The leading threat to our own national security from this region is al Qaeda. We took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq, instead of sustaining a robust military initiative and effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. While the Administration continues to focus on Iraq, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains one of the most troubled regions in the world, home to both widespread poverty and al Qaeda operatives. Musharraf has been an unreliable ally in our efforts to prevent the border region from becoming an al Qaeda safe haven. Musharraf has also been a roadblock to democracy, and while he claims emergency rule is needed to combat extremism and instability, it is the lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists he's thrown in jail.

Indeed, recent events in Pakistan highlight the administration's failure to carry through on its stated commitment to promoting democratic reforms and basic human rights. In March 2000, just prior to President Clinton's visit in Pakistan with General Musharraf, I urged him to press Musharraf to act on his stated intentions to return Pakistan to civilian rule, democratic governance and respect for human rights. I made it clear that the U.S. could never enjoy a stable partnership with Pakistan until those critical issues were addressed. When I visited Musharraf in Pakistan two years ago, I again made it clear that he had to take off his uniform -- not just symbolically -- and move towards democracy.

But that hasn't happened and by continuing to bet on Musharraf to shore up stability in the short term, this Administration has further eroded our credibility and commitment to freedom in the long run. Instead of a policy based on one man, we need to work on building Pakistan's infrastructure and supporting democracy. Ultimately, this emphasis is good not only for the people of Pakistan but for our own national security as well. If we are truly to protect our own national interests, we must commit ourselves to promoting and supporting the rule of law and institutions that seek to eliminate corruption, poor governance, endemic poverty, and the historic marginalization that, along with the lack of basic freedoms and political rights, has allowed and will continue to allow terrorist threats to fester and grow in Pakistan and elsewhere.

With these priorities in mind, we should refocus U.S. assistance to Pakistan so it is more aligned with the needs of the Pakistani people and less with a military leader who has undermined democracy. Counter-terrorism operations against al Qaeda in and along the Afghan border are an important element of our relationship, but that alone will not make for a more secure, stable Pakistan. Only a comprehensive foreign policy -- one that moves beyond the administration's myopic, country-by-country approach -- will make Pakistan, and in turn the U.S., more secure. If we fail to take that approach, we will have failed to learn the painful lessons of history and will be bound to repeat them -- this time in a region that is home to the greatest threat to our national security, al Qaeda.

Follow Sen. Russ Feingold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/U.S. Senator fr

Comments

[researcher]

but he is our dictator. leave him alone.

lets get on with it and have a contest to name our newest state iraq.

I vote for "blackgold".

now hurry up and get that pipeline built from iraq to israel. I mean from blackgold to israel.

[SallyLee]

Where is the logic? If an unstable country such as Pakistan is "permitted" by the US to have nuclear weapons - why is the US Goverment opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons? Why not just use the MAD mode to conrol the new entries into the nuclear club as we have in the past?

[AjazHaque]

Pakistan Outrage
Musharraf initially made a commitment to the world in 1999 then in 2001 and again in 2004 that he will resign from his military position and bring back democracy to Pakistan, but each time he found an excuse to continue his military rule.

Sensing an increasingly independent judiciary he sacked Pakistan's Chief Justice in March this year - a power not bestowed upon him by the constitution. The Supreme Court overruled him reinstating the Chief Justice.

More recently his bogus election as President was about to be over turned by the Supreme Court when he imposed emergency rule, suspended constitution, decimated the Supreme Court and arrested all senior judges. This is a disgrace and an outrage and no civilised society should have to endure it. This is a desperate act of a desperate dictator trying to cling to power.

The Laws Societies around the world, Inns of Courts and all legal and judicial bodies should condemn this action and insist that Musharraf withdraw Emergency Rule, restore Pakistan Constitution, reinstate all judges of the Supreme Court, release lawyers and others arrested since the emergency.

If Musharraf fails to do this (say) in a week, a massive media campaign should be launched against him by the law societies around the world.

[peterg76]

Al Qaeda is not the threat. Al Qaeda is simply responding, even if stupidly and barbarically, to horribly bad foreign policy decisions made by the US over the decades.

US national security has been devastated by Bush and Cheney sending the US military off to become cost-free mercenaries for oil companies. There's nothing left that al Qaeda could add to that.

Pakistan is a danger to the US because Pakistan, opposing democracy, sheltering bin Laden and stockpiling nuclear weapons, is allied with the US's true greatest enemy - George W. Bush.

[williamg]

I want to know who in the Bush admin. thought it would be a smart idea of sending Bhutto back to Pakistan after being convicted of corruption 2 times. Real friggin smart.

[oafishcad]

We invaded Iraq because they had WMDs (you know, like Pakistan's nukes). We invaded Afgahnistan because OBL was hiding there and wouldn't let us come get him (like Pakistan has done). Guess that just goes to show the reasons we went to war were just lies. All the Bush Presidency has done is make the US public a bunch of cynics who no longer believe a word that (most) politicians say.

[OleHippieChick]

Russell, jump right out of that (R) framing, please.

As threats go, bu$hCo is waaay more dangerous to our national security than al Qaeda will ever be.

We stopped buying their AQ bogeyman meme a long time ago.

[avidobserver]

I'd like to know, has this administration done anything right?

[Novista]

All over the blogosphere, I see comments about sheeple and screams of 'wake up America!'

And yet ... the last poll I saw indicated 74% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Also, a survey claims 80% of the public uses the Internet. Does this not suggest sheeple are a minority?

Didn't the 2006 election push for a change of course?

There's only so much the people can do, even when they outnumber the sheeple. Maybe a general strike, think France '68 ... or do we wait to see how much worse things get ...

[rollingdivision]

The USA needs to carefully methodically remove support of Musharraf. Nothing abrupt, or inflammatory just not help him with this "emergency". But, with the stockpile of nuclear bombs, the world will not be able to stand by if a radical government takes power in Pakistan. With the control of nuclear bombs Pakistan's government is everyones business in that respect.

[wadenelson1]

At this point the best thing we could do would be to get our own house in order and let Musharaff and his countrymen settle their own problems, without our $1.5B in assistance each year.

Or perhaps offer to continue the assistance in return for their de-comissioning of 5 nuclear weapons per year.

[lastams]

I would like to point out that Mr. Feingold was one of only three Senators to vote against H.R.1585, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. As passed, the bill contained multiple provisions of the National Guard Empowerment Act
which allows our President to place YOUR national guard under the direction of the DOD.
Couple this with Presidental Directive 51 (which allows him to declare martial law without the consent of Congress and disolve the government) and the pieces are in place for the instutition of a full fledged (legal) dictatorship.
Thank God we have (a few) Senators like Mr. Finegold trying to turn back the tide.
Hopefully, their voices will be heard before it is too late.

[intlaw]

What is at stake in Pakistan is also what is at stake here in the United States when President Bush claims an unconstitutional and unacceptable power to violate inhibiting treaty law concerning human rights and any inhibiting congressional legislation. See Paust, Beyond the Law.... 20-23, 86-91, 168-72, 233-48(Cambridge Univ. Press 2007), available through www.cambridge.org/us
JJP

[claytongrayum]

Run for President! Next time... Obama, CLinton, Edwards are stiffs and fakes. They dont represent change...

[maestra1985]

Please, Senator...consider running for President again someday. You have been at the top of my list for the past 4 election cycles.