BY JOEL SWANSON

In print | November 15, 2007

There is perhaps no single event which embodies the absurd depth to which America has sunk in the past few years more than President Bush’s response to Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of martial law in Pakistan.

On Saturday, Nov. 3, Musharraf officially declared a “state of emergency” in Pakistan, in the name of combating Islamic extremism and stabilizing the country. Of course, it seems likely that the real reason for his extra-constitutional actions was not so much the threat of Islamic militants as it was simply his refusal to relinquish any of his dictatorial powers. Musharraf’s move came just days before the Supreme Court was set to rule on whether or not his alleged victory in the 2007 Pakistani presidential election was legitimate or not. In addition, Musharraf has resisted demands that he step down as Pakistan’s army chief in order to continue to serve as its president. The return to Pakistan of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, from her exile in Dubai also threatens Musharraf’s tenuous hold on power. His response to all of these threats was to simply refuse to abide by any of the democratic institutions of Pakistan, and to become a full-fledged autocrat. He has suspended the Pakistani Constitution, fired Supreme Court justices and placed Bhutto under house arrest. Police are also detaining opposition political leaders and activists throughout the country. Musharraf now claims that he will relinquish his military position and hold elections in February; I’ll believe that when I see it.

Naturally, if the Bush administration genuinely believed in spreading democracy, as President Bush has repeatedly asserted, the response to such a move by Musharraf should be a swift and thorough condemnation, followed by the immediate end to all military aid to the Musharraf regime until democracy is restored. But the most the White House could say about Musharraf’s declaration of martial law was that it is “very disappointing.” Condoleezza Rice called it “highly regrettable.” And while Rice has indicated that aid money for Musharraf may be “reviewed,” thus far it seems that the money will continue flowing. Aides to Musharraf described the American response to Musharraf’s emergency powers as “muted.”

All of this just goes to show that Bush does not genuinely believe in democracy for the Islamic world, at least not at the expense of prosecuting the fight against terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, President Musharraf, who was never a genuinely democratic leader, has been an important ally of the United States, providing us with a foothold in a region plagued by problems with Islamic extremists. This has of course been a marriage of convenience, not conviction, but this has not stopped the U.S. from funneling roughly eleven billion dollars to the Musharraf regime. As a result, the Bush administration has been trying for months to negotiate a deal that would permit Musharraf to remain in power while still maintaining some surface appearance of democratic legitimacy. This would of course have only been a surface appearance; there is probably nothing that Bush fears more than genuine democratic elections in Pakistan, which would run the risk of electing an anti-American, pro-Islamist government. According to Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information, the Bush administration “would rather have a stable Pakistan - albeit with some restrictive norms - than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists.” As usual, Bush supports democracy only so far as the people exercise their right to vote for a pro-Western regime.

But even if Bush suddenly decided to actually unify his rhetoric and his actions for once, and to genuinely condemn Musharraf’s emergency powers, would we have any credibility left to make such a statement? The answer is, unfortunately, probably not. When you have a president who is willing to ignore almost all of his own country’s constitutional restrictions on his power in the name of fighting terrorism, it sends the message that such behavior is acceptable from other leaders as well. When you round up people simply because they have Middle Eastern-sounding names, and lock them up in prison with no right to challenge their detention, you cannot then condemn President Musharraf for rounding up opposing political leaders. When you have an attorney general nominee who refused to state that the president of the United States is restricted by the Constitution in matters of national security, and who refused to state that the technique of waterboarding is torture, then you basically forfeit all rights to condemn other world leaders for not abiding by the rule of law.

Indeed, one of the most striking and least covered aspects of Musharraf’s declaration of martial law was his explicit reference to U.S. history in justifying his decision. Musharraf cited Abraham Lincoln’s extra-constitutional measures during the United States Civil War as precedent, claiming that, “As an idealist, Abraham Lincoln had one consuming passion during that time of crisis, and this was to preserve the Union…towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties.” Musharraf was most likely using this juxtaposition to support his claim that Pakistan is facing a crisis of equal magnitude to the Civil War, and that extreme measures are needed to hold the nation together. Nevertheless, it was extremely jarring to hear a foreign dictator use U.S. history as justification for violating rule of law, a principle that is supposed to be sacred to this nation.

So we’ve come full circle now. We have an American president who violates laws in the name of national security, supporting a Pakistani president who violates laws in the name of national security, who in turn cites America as his example for the violation of laws in the name of national security. I’ve never been more embarrassed to be an American.

Joel is a sophomore. You can reach him at Jswanso1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »