I've
been watching Pakistan and the whole Subcontinent area for a while now
and this latest bully move by Musharraf to retain some sort of control
of his country by declaring martial law, or "emergency plus" powers as
the locals are calling it, continues to be instructive. Here in
America we have a choice, do we continue supporting a so-called-ally on
the War on Terror, Musharraf, as in this assertion of power or do we
support our overarching goal, the Rule of Law, which has been the
ostensible underlying principle of our engagement with the rest of the
world as well as the War on Terror?
Musharraf's been
subverting what we'd consider an approved ROL path for years, starting
with his coup and continuing through sacking judges and now this
martial law declaration, all in hopes of bringing the country
together. This latest move was in a small part to attempt to get his
soldiers whom the NWFP rebels captured w/o a shot. Musharraf's been
playing two ends against each other, in my opinion, which to be honest,
is almost the only way he can do it - he's been turning a blind eye,
sort of, to our cross-border interactions between Afghanistan and the
NWFP, causing us to refer to him as an "ally" and causing his own
countrymen to call him a hypocrite and a tyrant. This enrages his
opposition - both the seemingly more democratic Buhtto-esque side as
well as the more fundamentalist Taliban side. The foregone fact that
Al Qaeda's in full force in the NWFP makes it even more of a joke that
we call him an "ally."
So, this new step - does the War on
Terror trump the Rule of Law? Defenders of the Constitution already
have their answer, but for foreign policy nerds we'll have our answer
burned bright in how we react - via hollow diplomatic rebukes (aka
"disappointment") or actual pulling of monies and materiel support.
[Follow up edit]:
CSM Article on this very topic.