Don't Cry for Me, Pakistan

Clearly, political assassinations are a bad thing. Equally clearly, political assassinations in a place like Pakistan seem to herald instability, and instability in Pakistan is frightening. That said, I think it's worth being clear about something -- from the perspective of someone who's never spoken to Benazir Bhutto or any members of her inner circle, it seems like she was a really bad person and a terrible political leader. The main thing she did when in office was steal. A lot. Of money. From her extremely poor country. You have, basically, tens of millions of incredibly poor people in Pakistan. You have shitty infrastructure. You have a shitty school system. And you're the Prime Minister. What do you do about it? You steal an incredible sum of money, while helping your associates likewise steal an incredible sum of money.

I'm not aware of anything changing for the better in Pakistan when she was running things. And as far as her credentials as a democratic opposition leader, it's worth noting that she's not the democratically elected leader who was deposed in Musharraf's coup -- her rival Nawaz Sharif was. Her plan was to use her strong base of support in the US to cajole Musharraf into some kind of power-sharing agreement with her. And if she'd gotten a bigger share of the power, she would have used it to steal more money.

Now, of course, the trouble is that I don't know what I'm talking about. But the vast majority of people who do know what they're talking about know what they're talking about . . . based on talking to Bhutto and members of her political party. Bhutto was well-connected in the West. Her party is less Islam-inflected than its main rivals, which is appealing to westerners. She went to western schools as did a lot of her associates. They know people. But being "well-informed" about the situation through close ties with a partisan actor inside Pakistan is arguable no better than being totally uninformed. What you want is real expertise -- in-depth knowledge of the Pakistani situation, ability to speak to players who don't speak English and don't attend Western universities, wide-ranging associations with Pakistanis and ability to follow the Pakistani press.

But almost nobody has that. Which is why most of all, I sympathize with this statement from Zbigniew Brzezinski:

I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don't really think this is America's business and I don't think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan.

I don't know whether or not it's "our business" but the point is that we're unlikely to be able to do this effectively. The US, being rich and strong, has a good deal of influence to throw around in Pakistan. But it's much easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy than the reverse. We don't have the know-how, we don't have the expertise, and we never will. What we need to do is focus on what we can know -- what are our key interests in Pakistan -- and articulate them clearly and consistently combined with the proviso that we're willing to work with whatever kind of leadership Pakistan has on ways to advance our interests. Trying to pick the "best" faction and then shift things around so they wind up in power seems like a doomed mission. In general, the idea that the correct response to 9/11 was for the United States to start engaging more vigorously in efforts to micromanage political outcomes in Muslim countries seems badly mistaken. We need to make our policies more robust against internal political disagreements in the Islamic world, not do a better job of picking sides.

Comments

Now, of course, the trouble is that I don't know what I'm talking about. But the vast majority of people who do know what they're talking about know what they're talking about . . . based on talking to Bhutto and members of her political party.

That's deep.

Posted by southpaw | December 28, 2007 1:34 PM

"In general, the idea that the correct response to 9/11 was for the United States to start engaging more vigorously in efforts to micromanage political outcomes in Muslim countries seems badly mistaken. We need to make our policies more robust against internal political disagreements in the Islamic world, not do a better job of picking sides."

clearly a good idea. the problem is that, starting with the cold war (at least in force), the u.s. began micromanaging political outcomes all over the place. and once that happens, you begin defining foreign body politics in relation to our policy; ie, opinion of and policy towards america becomes a major fissure in other nations' domestic politics, as we've seen in the middle east, central america, etc. and that makes it pretty difficult to disentangle - that act of disentanglement itself is now a major disruption of the status quo, and one that (in the short term) won't serve our "interests." so the deck is stacked against it in that sense.

Posted by Max B. | December 28, 2007 1:36 PM

This is an interesting and powerful critique, I believe, though it will have no resonance in the 'serious' foreign policy community. These people see no limit to their ability to meddle productively. It also argues for a better educated intelligence corps. How many native speakers do we actually have? And how many are 'embedded' in the Pakistani society that they could figure out for themselves what the hell is going on instead of having to rely on reports from Bhutto and her party? It also poses another question: even with more native speakers in the CIA and State Department, can a democratic polity reasonable debate internal politics in a very foreign country? My guess is: no. But reasonable debate is pretty rare to come by anyhow, I suppose.

Posted by mpowell | December 28, 2007 1:37 PM

What we need to do is focus on what we can know -- what are our key interests in Pakistan -- and articulate them clearly and consistently

Well, jeez, this is exactly what we've been doing. Matthew's posted about this many times before, but what has he said about what those interests are? As far as I can tell, they are three: securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, decreasing the threat from AQ and other extremists located in Pakistan who attack America's other interests at home and abroad (specifically Afghanistan), and our general interest in promoting democracy. These are all things the Bush administration has spoken to.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2007 1:46 PM

Musharraf appears on the Daily Show -- how many Americans have been interviewed by bisexual transvestite superstar Begum Nawazish Ali?

The Pakistani Foreign Policy Establishment has a far better understanding of American domestic politics than the American Foreign Policy Establishment has of Pakistan.

This is true of almost every American client state (e.g. Saudis, Israelis, etc). Who is really benefiting from the American Empire? Who is manipulating whom?

Posted by Ponan | December 28, 2007 1:48 PM

What you want is real expertise -- in-depth knowledge of the Pakistani situation, ability to speak to players who don't speak English and don't attend Western universities, wide-ranging associations with Pakistanis and ability to follow the Pakistani press.

This is obviously quite right.

But it's much easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy than the reverse. We don't have the know-how, we don't have the expertise, and we never will.

I don't buy that. For a man who's so sanguine about our ability to rapidly abandon fossil fuels, it's quite bizarre to say that it's just plain impossible for Americans to learn another culture's language, study their politics, and exert effective influence. In fact, I'm sure people with the requisite expertise and know-how already exist. The problem is that we don't listen to them, and we have a political system that rewards listening to idiots instead.

But you have to admit there's at least some hope of changing that for the better. We don't just have to resign ourselves to being forever advised by idiots and curtail our ambitions accordingly, do we?

Posted by southpaw | December 28, 2007 1:48 PM

But it's much easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy than the reverse. We don't have the know-how, we don't have the expertise, and we never will.

But why is it easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy? They have "know-how" and "expertise" that we don't? I don't buy that.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2007 1:53 PM

BTW, even though I in some respects criticize the post, I think the general thrust of it is correct. We ought to be promoting a democratic process in all countries (since democracy abroad is inherently in our interest), and then simply dealing with the governments that arise from that process, rather than trying to pick and choose leaders.

This is why I still support the decision to promote Palestinian elections, even though Hamas won. We ought not pick Abbas over Hamas. We ought to promote democracy, and then deal with whoever wins on the basis we believe appropriate. And if a party or candidate wins that we find very unappealing (such as Hamas), so be it - that's not a failure of democracy. We simply need to determine how to deal with that winner (even if that is through cutting off aid, etc., as we did with Hamas). Elections have consequences - both for us and for the parties involved in their relations with us.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2007 1:59 PM

"We need to make our policies more robust against internal political disagreements in the Islamic world, not do a better job of picking sides."

Okay, whatever that means. But if we weren't trying to dominate the Middle East, we wouldn't have to worry about Pakistan at all. Does Iceland worry about Pakistan? Of course not. If anything, they worry that imperialist Americans might drag them into a war involving Pakistan.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 28, 2007 2:01 PM

But why is it easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy? They have "know-how" and "expertise" that we don't? I don't buy that.

Because Pakistani politics is several degrees less transparent than US politics? There are backroom deals and murky lobbying efforts in US politics, with multi-millionaire filth like Ed Rogers at the tiller, but 'deep politics' is just part of politics in the US: it's all of politics in Pakistan. Also, the US has one identifiable locus for foreign policy, whether transparent or opaque: it's the District of Columbia. The same with the UK. Pakistan, not so much.

Benazir and her supporters knew which strings to pull in London and DC. Comparing her with Ahmad Chalabi is slightly unfair, but the basic methods are not too far apart.

She was, as the post above makes clear, the PM who sheltered Pashtun militias pushed out of Afghanistan, and allowed them to re-emerge as 'Taliban'. But the US -- under Daddy Bush and Clinton -- took its eye off Afghanistan at the time. In self-imposed political exile -- which might be better described as 'her fugitive years' -- she continued to cultivate political and media contacts in the US and UK, some of whom go back to her Harvard and Oxford days. You could see Wolf Blitzer's beard twitching as he revealed that 'in the event of my death' email; even in death, Benazir knew how to play Americans like a fiddle.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 28, 2007 2:12 PM

Wow, I actually agree with Al on his last post above.

"But it's much easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy than the reverse. We don't have the know-how, we don't have the expertise, and we never will.

But why is it easier for Pakistani actors to manipulate US policy? They have "know-how" and "expertise" that we don't? I don't buy that.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2007 1:53 PM"

A big part of it has to do with language. The benefits for someone with access to a decent education in Pakistan to learn English are much higher than the benefits of an American to learn Urdu, which is only useful is you plan to go into the CIA or something along those lines. Pakistani elites are more likely to go to, I don't know, Harvard and Oxford than Americans are to spend 4-8 years studying in Pakistan. Every nation in the world not ruled by a fat Elvis-impersonating son of a communist dictator is flooded with American cultural products. How many Pakistani artists and entertainers do even well-informed Americans know of?

Posted by Reality Man | December 28, 2007 2:21 PM

I'd have to search it out but I did read a piece this morning from a person who met 'Bennie' (her chosen nickname) Bhutto when the writer has helping move her own freshman sister into the same stairwell as 'Bennie'. Over time 'Bennie' informed them that her parents had sent her to Harvard instead of Europe as being more likely to cultivate contacts that would assist her when she became leader of Pakistan. Moreover she told them her family had chosen her over her brother who was mad about it. Well the writer, not knowing whose family 'Bennie' belonged and not knowing a thing about Pakistani dynastic politics (btw me neither) dismissed this as the fantasy of a teen age girl.

But 'Bennie' meant every word of it. Lots of Americans grow up imagining themselves as President one day. With the exception of Kennedy few of them could imagine their family had the power to deliver. I mean even Bush had to wait until his fifties to get the nod, 'Bennie' wasn't even old enough to get served a drink and considered the future job a lock.

Which gives outsiders like me reason to hold back on concluding anything about Pakistani democracy. Clearly it means something different than here. By all reports Benazir Bhutto was bright and intelligent, but while in my 19 years attending and working at Berkeley I met all kinds of 17 and 18 year old girls with tremendous promise, none of them came with the future leadership of her country as a Sweet Sixteen gift.

I strongly suspect I am not the only one that doesn't get a political system that can deliver these kind of results in an ostensible democratic setting. For example there is a fourth generation member of the Nehru/Indira Gandhi line being groomed for the top spot and barring tragedy it doesn't seem people are betting against.

Posted by Bruce Webb | December 28, 2007 2:42 PM

Apparently I wasn't the only one bothered by "never will." Is it "never will" in the sense of "No U.S. U.S. government will bother to make enough effort to have its Pakistan policy under the influence of Americans who understand Pakistani politics almost as well, as well, or better than Pakistanis understand American politics," or is it that even if there was such a government they wouldn't be able to do so?

Posted by washerdreyer | December 28, 2007 2:47 PM

"I strongly suspect I am not the only one that doesn't get a political system that can deliver these kind of results in an ostensible democratic setting."

I promise, at age fifteen, Richie Daley knew he was going to be mayor of Chicago. And I'm sure a few Kennedys knew they only had to run.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 28, 2007 2:52 PM

And if a party or candidate wins that we find very unappealing (such as Hamas), so be it - that's not a failure of democracy. We simply need to determine how to deal with that winner (even if that is through cutting off aid, etc., as we did with Hamas). Elections have consequences - both for us and for the parties involved in their relations with us.

I really don't see this as a model at all. An attitude of, "Vote for the wrong people and we'll starve you" is not the way to create support for democratic reform in the Muslim world.

Posted by Peter H | December 28, 2007 3:08 PM

The Kennedy family is an unfair example. Its one thing for certain players to have far greater access to some political office and another for candidates for the top office to be nearly predetermined.

But I also don't think what you see in Pakistan is completely inimical to democracy. In Pakistan you have different power centers and those power centers select their representatives in a non-democratic, dynastic fashion. Dynastic b/c they prefer it that way and they probably believe it will be easier to gain popular support that way. An election between those representatives can still happen. Undemocratic nomination processes use to be the norm here, too.

Posted by mpowell | December 28, 2007 3:19 PM

I think Matthew leaves out some key qualifiers.

It's not that the US cannot develop serious expertise about Pakistan, but that it's not going to happen with the current VSP in charge of foreign policy.

There is actually enough of a Pakistani diaspora in the US who are well disposed to the US to be a brilliant resource for this. It's not even a matter of giving them CIA jobs, just let some of them into the South Asian Politics Research centres as students and professors instead of giving the jobs to nice girls from the Midwest Young Republicans grouping...

Posted by Meh | December 28, 2007 3:37 PM

The Pakistanis have been quite expert at manipulating the American foreign policy establishment for decades now, starting with the work of Ms Bhutto's father, Z. A. Bhutto in ensuring american support for Pakistani aggression in 1965, and the genocides in 1970-71 in present day Bangladesh. The democratic administrations in the US have been as incompetent as the current republican one when it came to Pakistan. When the nuclear program and the marketing of nuclear technology by A.Q Khan in the 1980's was in full swing, the USG chose to look the other way even when presented with evidence.

Matthew quoting Brzezinski on Pakistani politics is particularly ironic, given that Brzezinski was the one who began the brilliant american policy to support "Mujahideen" in Afghanistan, and then enable the construction of narcotics and arms smuggling networks from Pakistan to fund the afghan mujahids. The same networks today fund "Al Qaeda" and sundry terrorist organizations, who are staffed by former mujahideen and the refugees from previous conflicts in the region.

In any case, for a non american take on the assassination, and generally on Ms Bhutto's arrival in Pakistan:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers25/paper2419.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers26%5Cpaper2522.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers26%5Cpaper2520.html

Posted by krsa | December 28, 2007 5:00 PM

Pakistan has only short-range ballistic missiles, which are incapable of reaching anywhere in the western world.

More on my blog: leightonweese.squarespace.com

Posted by LeightonW | December 28, 2007 5:02 PM

Leighton, you are of course correct, but it's not really relevant. Pakistan, if motivated to do so or if it collapsed, could in theory proliferate critical masses or deliver bombs by container ship. Pakistan is unable to rapidly deliver warheads to Western cities (although you're a bit callous about the heavily populated, Western-friendly cities of India and the nearby American and NATO bases in Afghanistan) but the speed and convenience of delivery only becomes an issue if we were to suddenly invade, and even if that weren't a completely insane and groundless notion it's not like we've got the army to hand to do so.

No-one is worried about Pakistan using its weapons against the West (India cannot be entirly complacent, but one trusts their defense professionals know their business), we're worried about harboring terrorists and potential proliferation. So I don't see the point of your comment.

Posted by Warren Terra | December 28, 2007 6:10 PM

There is actually enough of a Pakistani diaspora in the US who are well disposed to the US to be a brilliant resource for this. It's not even a matter of giving them CIA jobs, just let some of them into the South Asian Politics Research centres as students and professors instead of giving the jobs to nice girls from the Midwest Young Republicans grouping...

We have a winner! Why did it take so long for someone to realize this? People immigrate to this country from countries who's internal politics we don't understand. Is it so hard to think that the immigrants from those countries might be a useful resource in understanding the politics of those countries? Yikes, if you can't see that, what kind of world are you living in?

Posted by Sajid | December 28, 2007 7:07 PM

As a Pakistani I resent the comment that Benazir Bhutto was a bad person or stole from Pakistanis.

Pakistan's military dictators have used that charge against everyone who opposes them. Musharraf said the same thing about Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry before "firing" him.

Demonization of liberal democrats by US-allied dictators is not unique to Pakistan. Throughout Latin America, in the era of military dictatorships, similar allegations were made against populist leaders.

If you dont know something, dont write about it.

Just think why millions of Pakistanis adore Bhutto if she really had stolen from them? Learn a thing or two about the complex dynamic of a struggle between populist-democrats and military dictators.

Posted by Wasiq | December 28, 2007 8:45 PM

I don't know, Wasiq, Benazir's niece, Fatima, had some pretty harsh words to say about Benazir (including killing her own brother, Murtaza)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bhutto14nov14,0,2482408.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Posted by Peter H | December 28, 2007 9:21 PM

Yes, I'd always heard that the widespread (and seemingly credible) claims that Benazir had killed her brother.

But just in the last 24-hours, I've now heard that it was also widely believed that Benazir had previously killed *another* brother as well. Just goes to show that my casual reading of the daily papers wasn't enough to qualify me for CIA or State.

But I do think in this particular case, it's fair to blame Western Culture for these dastardly deeds. I'd bet that in traditional South Asian society it would be almost unthinkable for a sister to kill a brother, although it would absolutely natural for brothers to slaughter each other in dynastic rivalries.

Maybe National Review should devote a cover story to this further proof of the morally corrosive impact of Western feminism upon the entire world.

Posted by RKU | December 28, 2007 10:11 PM

"Just think why millions of Pakistanis adore Bhutto if she really had stolen from them?"

And probably thirty million morons in the US still support George Bush.

So your point is?

If you have any evidence that Bhutto or her relatives did NOT engage in massive corruption and did not support the Taliban during her reign for political reasons, bring it on.

I don't doubt that the military leaders routinely state lies about their opposition. No doubt at all. But that's not the sum of the evidence, as far as I know. It seems to be consensus opinion by everyone who knows anything about Bhutto's administration. I don't think the consensus opinion about her is based entirely on the charges from the Pakistani military, but if you know differently, post links to references.

Otherwise your opinion is no better than anyone else's on the subject, despite your being from the country involved.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 28, 2007 10:18 PM

Also consider that the few who go to graduate school in whatever area studies covers Pakistan and learn Urdu or another useful language might face significant difficulties in getting past the security clearance phase of getting a job at CIA or State.

Posted by Mike | December 29, 2007 3:14 AM

Benazir is not the diplomat that the main stream media makes her out to be. She was a feudal Lord, born with a silver spoon in her mouth and she inherited a party. She refused to hold elections within her party and had appointed herself the life-chairperson of the party. No one can doubt that.

She supported the talibans. But that is not necessarily bad from the point of view of the Pakistanis.

She was, or atleast was perceived to be an American puppet, which is certainly bad from the Pakistani point of view and the American point of view.

During her term as the prime minister, particularly her second term, she was avaraciously corrupt. That is obviously bad from any point of view.

Posted by Munir Munshey | December 29, 2007 8:31 AM

I think the point that client states are more apt to manipulate US policy is based on this view of the bargain:

The client states must trade freely with the US, and in return;
The US must guarantee the safety of the client state.

The client state's end is existential, and the American end is active. We can't productively demand domestic policy reforms in these states for fear that the government will be toppled, and then we've lost our client.

Meanwhile, Israel/Pakistan/1980s Iraq can really engender US support for any action by saying, "if you don't help us, we'll be overthrown and you'll lose your client".

Posted by Luke | December 29, 2007 10:58 AM

As a Pakistani I resent the comment that Benazir Bhutto was a bad person or stole from Pakistanis.

You have to be kidding me. During her first term there was an argument to be made that she couldn't do anything constructive because she was saddled with a hostile foreign minister and a massively corrupt parliament awash in narco profits dependendent upon the military to keep the heroin flowing. If you have an apology for her second term when it's incredibly obvious she had just went with the flow and by all reports, not Musharaff, she and "Mr. 10%" hauled off over a billion dollars and just completely bought into the system I'd love to hear it because I haven't heard it before and it would be quite uplifting instead of the depressing cautionary tale of the PPP as I know it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 29, 2007 11:25 AM