It is certainly not ideal for US military and government officials to receive much of their intelligence in the war on terrorism from a government that is itself notorious for harboring terrorists. When viewed from this angle, it would seem as if an alliance with Pakistan could be counterproductive in the attempt to eradicate terrorism. Yet it is imperative to consider whether the need for Pakistani intelligence and support in the continued struggle against terrorism outweighs the oppressive and radical tendencies of the Pakistani government. If so, what should be the policy toward Pakistan now that the war on terrorism in Afghanistan is winding down?

Many of the problems that led to the current situation in Afghanistan are also present in Pakistan. The roots of extremism and terrorism in Pakistan lie in its precipitous economic decline, lack of representative institutions, and meager civil liberties and human rights. The September crisis placed President Musharraf in a delicate position between US demands to support military action against Afghanistan and the threat of civil conflict from important sectors of Pakistani society sympathetic to the Taliban. There certainly is a faction within Pakistani society that feels betrayed by the United States.

Although there is doubt about the legitimacy of these claims, they are potentially explosive extremist sentiments. As oppressive as Musharraf’s regime may be, many policy-makers have an even greater fear of the regime that would come to power if he were defeated. An extremist regime with nuclear weapons certainly does not bode well for the region’s future. This places global policy-makers in an extremely precarious situation, and the elections that Musharraf has promised to hold in 2003 further raise the stakes. On the one hand, the elections provide an unprecedented opportunity for greater openness within the Pakistani government and would allow the country to take the first steps toward democracy. On the other hand, if sentiments become too polarized, an extremist regime could ascend to power, worsening the plight of the Pakistani people.

Safe for Democracy?

Certainly the failed practice of appeasement in the years prior to World War II is at the back of many minds. At the same time, most everyone is in support of coalition building, and nobody argues that the eradication of terrorism is not a noble goal. It is interesting to note the similarities between Afghanistan and the Weimar Republic of Germany. Both were ravaged by economic upheaval, both experienced a profound feeling of betrayal, and both fell victim to extremist authoritarian regimes that provided stability in times of adversity. The United States, Britain, and France put aside their differences with the Soviet Union to protect Western Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world from the forces of oppression. The United States and its Western allies are still trying—as they were during the Cold War and World War II—to pursue these same goals.

This leaves foreign policy-makers to ponder the proper role of Western nations. The answer to the foreign-policy predicament in Pakistan is dependent on whether the war on terrorism is a war on the state level and revolving primarily around military action, an ideological war, or a combination of both. If it is to be a purely ideological war, it would be extremely dubious to have allies who harbor terrorists themselves. Yet conducting an entirely ideological war is not practical. The current situation requires Western nations to reach out to Muslim states like Pakistan who have not historically been strong allies. Neither can the fight be purely on the state level, since terrorism transcends national boundaries. Rather, it should be a combination of both, combating terrorism on a concrete, national level while encouraging democracy and civil rights on a more ideological level.

Although Pakistan does have a history of harboring terrorists, its recent alliance with the West is a huge step toward recognizing the ills of terrorism abroad. Since last September, Musharraf’s government has condemned terrorist attacks and arrested leaders of the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist networks. While US President George W. Bush acknowledges that there is still additional work to be done, especially with regard to state-sanctioned terrorism in the Kashmir region, he argues that Musharraf is indeed moving forward. In fact, this alliance could be the first step in correcting Pakistan’s political instability, nuclear proliferation, and human-rights abuses. At the same time, it provides an excellent opportunity to hold Musharraf’s regime to its promise to have elections in 2003.

Not only humanitarian aid but also opportunities for education in such fields as business development, teaching, technology, and health care will help foster long-standing coalitions and make democracy a much more plausible alternative. It is true that military action is sometimes necessary, but as conflicts from World War I through the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan demonstrate, military force by itself is not a long-term solution. Rather, the problems that plague Central Asia and the Middle East are long-term and will require equally long-term alliances and commitments. Although it might be easier to simply move on once short-term goals are accomplished, ongoing aid along the lines of programs mentioned above is essential.

Western policy-makers are on the right track in developing such alliances. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a recent visit to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, pledged that victory in the war will be followed by an equally determined campaign to rebuild Afghanistan: “We will be there. We will not abandon them.” The new interim leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, believes the United States is committed: “Now I can tell [the Afghan people], ‘yes, the US will stay with us.’”

The United Nations and Western governments have pledged to work closely with the Pakistani government on the Afghan refugee situation. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are in desperate need of supplies, and the UN High Commission for Refugees, led by Ruud Lubbers, hopes that this time it will receive the support it needs from the Western nations in order to be successful in combating the refugee crisis. Western donors have stated their long-term commitment; at the recent Tokyo conference, the United States, Japan, and Europe pledged US$1.3 billion of the total US$3.9 billion raised by the conference.